Trump and Amtrak/Budget cutting funding

[CCC1007]

RSG nailed it. People drive a long way to catch the Empire Builder because everything in the west, and in Montana especially, is spread out over a huge spread of land. When I was growing up on the Hi-Line in Montana, we would drive 300 miles for a basketball game and the girls in my high school drove 280 miles to the big city of Billings to shop for clothes. The Empire Builder is a big thing in Montana (and North Dakota I would imagine) and not just for the very northernmost towns.

I would just point out that studies and fact sheets which point out "distance from [something]" are irrelevant and inherently flawed if they don't also include "distance people are willing to travel to [something]". In the interior West, people are used to driving distances for everyday reasons that people on the coasts and near population centers would consider unthinkable outside of the context of a major road trip.
Personally, I travel four hours (240 miles) to the nearest Amtrak station. Relatives and neighbors travel the same distance just so they can fly out of a major airport with more flights, more connections, and--almost always--cheaper flights.

Completely agree that the empire builder is a big thing in Montana, and it even has a draw from Canadian customers, some even coming from as far as Edmonton to board at sby.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Fellas, Just step away from Limbaugh radio and Faux News.Your fever will go down just as soon as you do.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Nobody is leading a movement to nationalize anything, least of all the railroads. But like some folks imagine spooky boogers in their closets or under their beds, some imagine Socialists in high places aiming to nationalize the commanding heights of the economy.

Here on AU, when someone advocates taking over the big freight railroads, usually the aim is compare that far out idea with the more far out way we actually do things today. On the one hand, here's a wild idea; on the other hand, here's the really stupid was we do things now.

Subsidizing passenger rail isn't much like European-style Socialism anyway. It's more like American-style transportation policy: The government builds dams and locks and dredges rivers and bays to subsidize private barge traffic. The government provides funds for private companies to fly small passenger planes into small cities where the local Chamber of Commerce has convinced their Congresscritter that air service is "essential" for business visitors. The government requires airport landing fees to be per airplane, rather than per passenger; does a plane with 200 passengers cost 100 times as much for an airport to handle as a one-pilot cub -- traffic control, refueling facilities, hanger space, whatever? The government transfers Billions from general revenue (income tax) into the Highway Trust Fund because low gas taxes don't generate enuff to keep highways and bridges in a state of good repair.

Of course, some types of transportation are more equal than others in the amount of federal aid they get. Perhaps we should remedy this disparity, and nationalize the highways and waterways, and take all the publicly owned and operated airports into one federal agency, the National Airports Administration.

We could do that, perhaps as a last resort. But perhaps we can find another way to more fairly distribute federal support to all types of interstate transportation. Ya think?

 

[Rover]

So, rather taking over the freight lines, just spend the billions of infrastructure on new dedicated passenger rail lines.

Then comes the politics of where to build and route those new dedicated passenger rail lines.

Them instead of the Govt. running a passenger train, the free market could decide who wants to service those rail routes.

 

[Lonestar648]

Could there be a joint operation where in busy lanes, there is a passenger track(s) maybe parallel to the freight tracks, built for higher speeds and passenger comfort. But in the less traveled area both Freight and Passenger travel on same tracks that have been upgraded for Passenger speed with sidings and/or double track. Eliminate current grade crossings so speeds can be higher, travel safer. Laying entirely new ROW for Passenger would be extremely expensive to purchase, gain local, county, state, and federal approvals, and work through all the litigation per mile. Just a thought of a way to get higher speed tracks for Passenger rail. Also, eliminate the congressional limit on the number of concrete ties used by the RR because of the Lumber industry lobby s.

 

[seat38a]

Could there be a joint operation where in busy lanes, there is a passenger track(s) maybe parallel to the freight tracks, built for higher speeds and passenger comfort. But in the less traveled area both Freight and Passenger travel on same tracks that have been upgraded for Passenger speed with sidings and/or double track. Eliminate current grade crossings so speeds can be higher, travel safer. Laying entirely new ROW for Passenger would be extremely expensive to purchase, gain local, county, state, and federal approvals, and work through all the litigation per mile. Just a thought of a way to get higher speed tracks for Passenger rail. Also, eliminate the congressional limit on the number of concrete ties used by the RR because of the Lumber industry lobby s.

Well that is what they are doing for large portions of the CAHSR. Big portions of it will be along existing ROW next to current freight rail. Also, not dedicated ROW but the model that the State of California is using on the Capitol Corridor is probably a more realistic model. Portions of the corridor also have the ability for faster passenger rail to pass slower freight trains, vs one or the other idling at a siding.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

There's no other proposals. The Trump budget isnt rational it's just cut, cut, cut. If it's for the middle class or lower just cut it. Hopefully smarter heads will prevail in the Senate for the good of the country.

Specially talking about Amtrak. I hate to bring it up since I'm very involved with my airline union and pro labor. Compared to an equivalent job at the airlines Amtrak OBS are very well (and possibly) over compensated. A flight attendant at American Eagle, United Express and such makes the equivalent of minimum wage(16,000-18,00 a year).Most regional airline pilots make under 50,000 and some ALOT less. Long days, 2 star hotels, no pension a 401k that may match 5 percent and high ded medical. Pilot pay gets better as they go to major airlines. Flight attendant pay does as well but tops out around 40 grand, again with so so benefits, no pension.

My point being Iowa Pacific put out a great onboard product with dedicated employees on the Hoosier state. I'm sure they were making next to nothing compared to Amtrak employees with probably a 401k at best.

If the majority of Amtrak does indeed get slated to shut down with the final budget from Congress I think Moorman should try a last ditch plea. Funding for one more year while he tries to negotiate with unions for major concesions. What's better the choice to continue to work if you want with your pension frozen and a 40 percent wage/ benefit cut or be unemployed and loose the national network and the chance to fight another day? Airline employees took the same hit after 9/11. Even with a cut that drastic Amtrak OBS would still be better overall then airline workers.

I am no way saying I think Amtrak employees deserve a pay cut. The facts are equivalent jobs pay less and we have a very anti labor party controlling the purse strings now. If the 94 percent cost recovery is true the concessions would chip away at it. It's just a sucky situation.

 

[A Voice]

There's no other proposals. The Trump budget is just cut, cut, cut. If it's for the middle class or lower just cut it. Hopefully smarter heads will prevail in the Senate for the good of the country.

Just because the proposed (and DOA) budget isn't kind to passenger rail doesn't mean it is wholly devoid of sound policy and good ideas. Defense is important, for one, and then there remains the yet-to-be-unveiled infrastructure plans which potentially represents a boon for rail transportation. However, neither need come at the expense of programs which combined (Amtrak, PBS, etc.) wouldn't buy one Navy carrier.

There is such a thing as giving the budgetary and political process a chance, and see how things play out, before condemning it as irredeemable.

 

[MikefromCrete]

There's no other proposals. The Trump budget is just cut, cut, cut. If it's for the middle class or lower just cut it. Hopefully smarter heads will prevail in the Senate for the good of the country.

Just because the proposed (and DOA) budget isn't kind to passenger rail doesn't mean it is wholly devoid of sound policy and good ideas. Defense is important, for one, and then there remains the yet-to-be-unveiled infrastructure plans which potentially represents a boon for rail transportation. However, neither need come at the expense of programs which combined (Amtrak, PBS, etc.) wouldn't buy one Navy carrier.

There is such a thing as giving the budgetary and political process a chance, and see how things play out, before condemning it as irredeemable.

We already spend more money on defense than any other country in the world. I highly doubt if there will be any be infrastructure program because the Republicans in the House and Senate hate any kind of big spending. Just like the ACA replacement, Trump's bluster on big shiny things will go down to defeat.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Yep, we spend more on so called Defense, aka Police the World, "Intellegence" and the Phoney War on Drugs than the rest of the World combined!

Is it value for the money spent? Decidefor yourself, but from here it looks like the Republicans Classic "Waste,Fraud and Abuse!"

And a quickie Civics quiz: How long has,it been since Congress passed a Real Budget?

Not "Smoke and Mirrors" or Continuing Resolutions!!!

 

[neroden]

There's no other proposals. The Trump budget is just cut, cut, cut. If it's for the middle class or lower just cut it. Hopefully smarter heads will prevail in the Senate for the good of the country.

Just because the proposed (and DOA) budget isn't kind to passenger rail doesn't mean it is wholly devoid of sound policy and good ideas.

As a syllogism, this is true, but in fact the proposed (and DOA) budget is wholly devoid of sound policy and good ideas.

Defense is important, for one,

Yeah, this isn't for defense. I've been following the Military Reform Movement for 30 years. This stuff is slush funds for military contractors; nothing to do with defense. For a strong defense, the first thing we'd need to do is to *massively slash* the budget so that some of the counterproductive pork-barrel military spending which doesn't actually have any military benefit would start to go away. Tanks shipped directly to the tank "graveyards". Ships the Navy doesn't want. Manned fighters and aircraft carriers (now considered obsolete militarily by all serious tacticians; unmanned drones and missiles can run circles around them). Nuclear subs (now obsoleted by zero-heat-signature ultrasilent battery / fuel cell subs). I could go on and on but it's wildly off topic.

and then there remains the yet-to-be-unveiled infrastructure plans

Yeah, which aren't in this "budget". At all. Several people have commented on it. This tells me that this "budget" isn't actually Trump's idea and that he didn't read it, given that he's still advocating for infrastructure spending which somehow *wasn't proposed* in this "budget".

There is such a thing as giving the budgetary and political process a chance, and see how things play out, before condemning it as irredeemable.

Yeah, even the House Republicans have already rejected the DOA "budget". The process should come up with something more like a real budget. Hopefully.

 

[neroden]

OK so you want to nationalize all transportation to put on an equal footing with Amtrak. It could get a bit expensive.

UP has a market capitalization of $86B, CSX $43B, NS $35B, KSU $9B according to my Morningstar. BN is owned by Berkshire so call it another $86B like UP. You're already up to $259B without counting the smaller railroad operators, the airlines, the truckers, bus lines, cruise ships, and the auto industry. It would cost a bundle, especially if you were required to pay a takeover premium.

Eh. Clement Atlee paid a lot to nationalize the British railroads. Worked out well.
More practically speaking, the thing which ought to be nationalized is specifically the TRACKS. It's fine to have private operators and private train ownership; the problem is private TRACK ownership, which is the equivalent of privately owned roads (which, by the way, we basically don't have; they were all nationalized).

The tracks are a small fraction of the overall market value of the railroads and several railroads have been frankly eager to sell them. CN just keeps selling its Canadian tracks (to GO, to AMT, to VIA), and CP seems equally willing. NS under Moorman openly suggested selling all their tracks to the government.

 

[neroden]

It is sad to say but politically speaking it appears this administration has no use for transportation policy. Trump's victory in this regard was making some popular comments about "crumbling infrastructure", as well as getting to appoint a minority (Mrs. Chao) to his cabinet in an effort to silence critics and score points with the Heritage Foundation. Remember that Amtrak is strictly a northeastern railroad. In all places where Amtrak operates outside the NEC, it must conduct operations at the discretion of apathetic freight carriers who maintain their infrastructure to the least passable standards.

Nationalized tracks (state-owned, mostly; some leased by states under very-long-term leases; some owned by Amtrak or commuter rail authorities) which Amtrak operates on:

NORTHEAST:

-- Boston - Maine border

-- Worcester - Boston

-- NEC, Boston - Washington

-- New Haven - Hartford - Springfield - roughly Vermont border

-- New York - Hoffmans (west of Schenectady)

-- Albany - junction with CSX towards Boston ("Post Road Branch")

-- Montreal final station approach tracks

-- east of Niagara Falls NY station - the vicinity of Niagara Falls ON station

-- Aldershot ON - Toronto

-- Philadelphia - Harrisburg

MIDWEST:

-- east of Dearborn MI to west of Michigan City IN

-- Grand Rapids station tracks

-- Chicago River (south branch) through Chicago Union Station, north to Glenview IL

SOUTHEAST:

-- New Orleans Union Station approaches

-- Charlotte NC (north of station) - Greensboro NC - Raleigh NC

-- Miami FL - Mangonia Park, FL

-- north of Poinciana, FL - DeLand, FL

TRANSCON:

-- St. Paul station tracks

-- Denver Union Station approaches

-- Isleta (south of Albuquerque) - north of Lamy

-- Dallas - Fort Worth

WEST COAST:

-- (soon) Nisqually - east of Tacoma, WA

-- LA Union Station approaches

-- Los Angeles - Moorpark (IIRC, might be further)

-- Fullerton (just south of Los Angeles) - San Diego

Probably more than you thought, eh? All proposals for a new Long Bridge would separate passenger tracks from freight from DC to Alexandria, meaning more nationalized track. South of the Lake is an attempt to have passenger-only nationalized track from Michigan City to Chicago. Vermont is planning to extend service to Burlington on nationalized track...

 

[jis]

There is a significant chance of some further selling by CSX in Florida.

OTOH there is significant private track development for passenger rail going on in Florida too with recent statements about further extensions to Tampa and Jacksonville. Oddly, it appears to be FDOT's 2010 plan that is proposed to be built out by AAF!

Then again Florida has had a history of private development of cities, passenger railways and highways in the past with some public funding too, including new counties being created as essentially private fiefdom to get a highway built.

 

[Rover]

Yep, we spend more on so called Defense, aka Police the World, "Intellegence" and the Phoney War on Drugs than the rest of the World combined!

Is it value for the money spent? Decidefor yourself, but from here it looks like the Republicans Classic "Waste,Fraud and Abuse!"

And a quickie Civics quiz: How long has,it been since Congress passed a Real Budget?

Not "Smoke and Mirrors" or Continuing Resolutions!!!

Fake Enemies

Fake Wars

It's what makes/made the World Go Round, isn't it??

 

[Rover]

OK so you want to nationalize all transportation to put on an equal footing with Amtrak. It could get a bit expensive.

UP has a market capitalization of $86B, CSX $43B, NS $35B, KSU $9B according to my Morningstar. BN is owned by Berkshire so call it another $86B like UP. You're already up to $259B without counting the smaller railroad operators, the airlines, the truckers, bus lines, cruise ships, and the auto industry. It would cost a bundle, especially if you were required to pay a takeover premium.

Eh. Clement Atlee paid a lot to nationalize the British railroads. Worked out well.
More practically speaking, the thing which ought to be nationalized is specifically the TRACKS. It's fine to have private operators and private train ownership; the problem is private TRACK ownership, which is the equivalent of privately owned roads (which, by the way, we basically don't have; they were all nationalized).

The tracks are a small fraction of the overall market value of the railroads and several railroads have been frankly eager to sell them. CN just keeps selling its Canadian tracks (to GO, to AMT, to VIA), and CP seems equally willing. NS under Moorman openly suggested selling all their tracks to the government.

Well...THIS

 

[blueman271]

There's no other proposals. The Trump budget is just cut, cut, cut. If it's for the middle class or lower just cut it. Hopefully smarter heads will prevail in the Senate for the good of the country.

Just because the proposed (and DOA) budget isn't kind to passenger rail doesn't mean it is wholly devoid of sound policy and good ideas.

As a syllogism, this is true, but in fact the proposed (and DOA) budget is wholly devoid of sound policy and good ideas.

Defense is important, for one,

Yeah, this isn't for defense. I've been following the Military Reform Movement for 30 years. This stuff is slush funds for military contractors; nothing to do with defense. For a strong defense, the first thing we'd need to do is to *massively slash* the budget so that some of the counterproductive pork-barrel military spending which doesn't actually have any military benefit would start to go away. Tanks shipped directly to the tank "graveyards". Ships the Navy doesn't want. Manned fighters and aircraft carriers (now considered obsolete militarily by all serious tacticians; unmanned drones and missiles can run circles around them). Nuclear subs (now obsoleted by zero-heat-signature ultrasilent battery / fuel cell subs). I could go on and on but it's wildly off topic.

and then there remains the yet-to-be-unveiled infrastructure plans

Yeah, which aren't in this "budget". At all. Several people have commented on it. This tells me that this "budget" isn't actually Trump's idea and that he didn't read it, given that he's still advocating for infrastructure spending which somehow *wasn't proposed* in this "budget".

There is such a thing as giving the budgetary and political process a chance, and see how things play out, before condemning it as irredeemable.

Yeah, even the House Republicans have already rejected the DOA "budget". The process should come up with something more like a real budget. Hopefully.

#alternatefacts. It appears that what you call "facts" are just as dubious as what our President calls the "truth". By all means please explain what an ultra silent battery is, especially in regards to application in submarines. You may have 30 years of "experience" in an armchair behind a computer, but my guess is you don't have any actual real world knowledge. Furthermore, I fully believe that increased defense spending is unnecessary however the way to illustrate that isn't by throwing out b*llsh$t to make people think you know what you are talking about.

 

[neroden]

It is a mistake to assume I don't know what I'm talking about. I do. The subs are an *easy* example, though I exaggerated regarding the heat signature (nothing is really zero -- it's just low-heat enough to pass for a fish):

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/swedens-super-stealth-submarines-are-so-lethal-they-sank-us-18383

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/1241-modern-dieselelectric-and-aip-subs-vs-nuclear-subs/

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/usa-is-not-buying-cheaper-and-deadlier.html

And finally...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3470/australia-is-getting-the-baddest-diesel-electric-submarines-on-the-planet

These aren't even the sources I originally learned about this from.

It's not the batteries which are ultra-silent, it's the submarines, as should be obvious. The nuclear subs are too loud to be competitive for the majority of submarine missions, and the newest diesel-electrics work for everything with the exception of the "blow up the world" MAD "deterrent", which we really shouldn't be doing anyway. But the US has an institutional bias towards buying more nuclear subs, so we're not buying the better electric subs.

Yes, all the other stuff I said can be equally well cited. I advise using Google.

The Military Reform Movement (of whom Chuck Spinney is probably the loudest still active, and I strongly recommend his blog) would blame all of this misprocurement and militarily-counterproductive spending on what they call the "military-industrial-congressional complex". Procurement decisions are simply not made for military purposes; they are made for "feeding at the trough". This accounts for the tank graveyard, the ships the Navy doesn't want, etc.

Often all one needs to become better at a subject than most people is to know enough to know *how to evaluate who to listen to*, and then do your research. I do a *lot* of research. There are many areas on which I am not an expert but I have studied them long enough to know who the experts are *and* which experts actually know what they're doing. I have corrected poor decisions made by people with "real world experience", or simply outwitted them, often enough. I respect experience greatly -- used right it is very valuable. But used wrong, it can also be very narrow-minded and limiting.

Now, if you are honorable, I expect you to apologize for your unfounded, evidence-free, and incorrect accusation against my honesty and against my knowledge level. I'm waiting.

 

[sldispatcher]

I would say that there seems to be little political will on either side of the aisle to do the right thing for passenger rail in this country. We really missed the boat in the late 60's / early 70's in getting a high speed rail network investment in place.

Rail can work in this country but it takes vision and leadership on all sides that we simply don't have in place. It is amazing to me that railroads ran multiple passenger frequencies for years on tracks all over this country but in today's climate you think one train in each direction brings an entire freight network to its knees. Union rules in place hamstring any attempt to keep costs in check from a business model perspective. Blind political leaders keep forcing cuts into the LD network services at the point of the highest yielding passengers forcing them to make real decisions about rail vs. alternate forms of transportation. Frequency is almost nill in most LD markets and inadequate in almost all places outside a few corridors, but without equipment and reliability of schedule, the folks won't or can't go for it. Environmental Impact studies and NIMBY lawsuits drive costs and timeframe estimates through the roof.

No one party to this Amtrak dance is to blame alone. The Republicans/Conservatives catch a lot of heat on this board and for good reason at times. But the Democrats, when they were in a position to do anything and everything with rail in this country, hardly budged the needle of perceptible results.

We can do better. We should do better.

 

[RSG]

Frequency is almost nill in most LD markets and inadequate in almost all places outside a few corridors, but without equipment and reliability of schedule, the folks won't or can't go for it.

To be fair, this is also applicable to the airline world, as well. There are a number of places where there is only one flight in and one flight out per day (or--maybe--two per day). If there are multiple flights, often one is cancelled. People think trains often don't have enough capacity for possible demand at times, but there are some airports where you had better hope you are one of the lucky nine people able to get on a particular flight or you are not going out that day. (Often intercity bus service isn't available, either.)
Ditto the complaints about routing through Chicago or Washington to go somewhere else. Airline travel operates the same way, outside of hub airports. Oftentimes going in the opposite direction is essential to travelling where one really wants to go. It wasn't always this way.

Transportation in general is messed up in the US. You are definitely right, we can do better.

 

[blueman271]

It is a mistake to assume I don't know what I'm talking about. I do. The subs are an *easy* example, though I exaggerated regarding the heat signature (nothing is really zero -- it's just low-heat enough to pass for a fish):

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/swedens-super-stealth-submarines-are-so-lethal-they-sank-us-18383

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/1241-modern-dieselelectric-and-aip-subs-vs-nuclear-subs/

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/usa-is-not-buying-cheaper-and-deadlier.html

And finally...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3470/australia-is-getting-the-baddest-diesel-electric-submarines-on-the-planet

These aren't even the sources I originally learned about this from.

It's not the batteries which are ultra-silent, it's the submarines, as should be obvious. The nuclear subs are too loud to be competitive for the majority of submarine missions, and the newest diesel-electrics work for everything with the exception of the "blow up the world" MAD "deterrent", which we really shouldn't be doing anyway. But the US has an institutional bias towards buying more nuclear subs, so we're not buying the better electric subs.

Yes, all the other stuff I said can be equally well cited. I advise using Google.

The Military Reform Movement (of whom Chuck Spinney is probably the loudest still active, and I strongly recommend his blog) would blame all of this misprocurement and militarily-counterproductive spending on what they call the "military-industrial-congressional complex". Procurement decisions are simply not made for military purposes; they are made for "feeding at the trough". This accounts for the tank graveyard, the ships the Navy doesn't want, etc.

Often all one needs to become better at a subject than most people is to know enough to know *how to evaluate who to listen to*, and then do your research. I do a *lot* of research. There are many areas on which I am not an expert but I have studied them long enough to know who the experts are *and* which experts actually know what they're doing. I have corrected poor decisions made by people with "real world experience", or simply outwitted them, often enough. I respect experience greatly -- used right it is very valuable. But used wrong, it can also be very narrow-minded and limiting.

Now, if you are honorable, I expect you to apologize for your unfounded, evidence-free, and incorrect accusation against my honesty and against my knowledge level. I'm waiting.

Not only will I not apologize I say again that you do not know what you are talking about. You have an idea in your head so you found 'sources' that support that idea. However misinformed and wrongheaded it may be. Read the first few paragraphs on page two of the first link. They start to spell out the reason why America maintains and continues to build nuclear submarines.
Furthermore, you have no idea what the vast majority of submarine missions are. You may be able to sit in front of your computer and make assumptions but they are not 'educated' or 'smart'. Your research will never turn up the true mission of the Navy's submarines because the Navy does not and never has disclosed the majority of those missions.

You say that diesel electric submarines reduce their heat signature to that of a fish which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are ill informed at best. Submarines are tracked by their sound or magnetic profile not by their 'heat' signature. And as far as quieting goes there are various ways to make a nuclear submarine as quiet as an AIP diesel boat. But again your 'research' won't tell you this because the Navy does not disclose their methods.

Finally, the Gotland is an amazing boat with an amazing crew. And yes she did get the best of our forces. But their have been countless times when we have gotten the best of the oppositions forces with our old, loud, inefficient nuclear submarines. And although you may not value experience, as most people that have never done something but claim to know everything often do, you should know that I am a submariner and have been for the last eleven years.

 

[A Voice]

It is a mistake to assume I don't know what I'm talking about. I do. The subs are an *easy* example, though I exaggerated regarding the heat signature (nothing is really zero -- it's just low-heat enough to pass for a fish):

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/swedens-super-stealth-submarines-are-so-lethal-they-sank-us-18383

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/1241-modern-dieselelectric-and-aip-subs-vs-nuclear-subs/

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/usa-is-not-buying-cheaper-and-deadlier.html

And finally...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3470/australia-is-getting-the-baddest-diesel-electric-submarines-on-the-planet

These aren't even the sources I originally learned about this from.

It's not the batteries which are ultra-silent, it's the submarines, as should be obvious. The nuclear subs are too loud to be competitive for the majority of submarine missions, and the newest diesel-electrics work for everything with the exception of the "blow up the world" MAD "deterrent", which we really shouldn't be doing anyway. But the US has an institutional bias towards buying more nuclear subs, so we're not buying the better electric subs.

Yes, all the other stuff I said can be equally well cited. I advise using Google.

The Military Reform Movement (of whom Chuck Spinney is probably the loudest still active, and I strongly recommend his blog) would blame all of this misprocurement and militarily-counterproductive spending on what they call the "military-industrial-congressional complex". Procurement decisions are simply not made for military purposes; they are made for "feeding at the trough". This accounts for the tank graveyard, the ships the Navy doesn't want, etc.

Often all one needs to become better at a subject than most people is to know enough to know *how to evaluate who to listen to*, and then do your research. I do a *lot* of research. There are many areas on which I am not an expert but I have studied them long enough to know who the experts are *and* which experts actually know what they're doing. I have corrected poor decisions made by people with "real world experience", or simply outwitted them, often enough. I respect experience greatly -- used right it is very valuable. But used wrong, it can also be very narrow-minded and limiting.

Now, if you are honorable, I expect you to apologize for your unfounded, evidence-free, and incorrect accusation against my honesty and against my knowledge level. I'm waiting.

Not only will I not apologize I say again that you do not know what you are talking about. You have an idea in your head so you found 'sources' that support that idea. However misinformed and wrongheaded it may be. Read the first few paragraphs on page two of the first link. They start to spell out the reason why America maintains and continues to build nuclear submarines.
Furthermore, you have no idea what the vast majority of submarine missions are. You may be able to sit in front of your computer and make assumptions but they are not 'educated' or 'smart'. Your research will never turn up the true mission of the Navy's submarines because the Navy does not and never has disclosed the majority of those missions.

You say that diesel electric submarines reduce their heat signature to that of a fish which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are ill informed at best. Submarines are tracked by their sound or magnetic profile not by their 'heat' signature. And as far as quieting goes there are various ways to make a nuclear submarine as quiet as an AIP diesel boat. But again your 'research' won't tell you this because the Navy does not disclose their methods.

Finally, the Gotland is an amazing boat with an amazing crew. And yes she did get the best of our forces. But their have been countless times when we have gotten the best of the oppositions forces with our old, loud, inefficient nuclear submarines. And although you may not value experience, as most people that have never done something but claim to know everything often do, you should know that I am a submariner and have been for the last eleven years.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience. It was informative. We can all fall into the trap of thinking we know more than we really do at times, which is something we need to keep in mind both here and elsewhere. It is too easy on the web to 'cherry-pick' evidence which looks and sounds convincing to support a pre-determined and desired conclusion, and often too difficult to tell objective, fact-based sources from biased ones.

 

[Ryan]

you should know that I am a submariner and have been for the last eleven years.

Yet in all of that time, you've not learned to treat people with respect.

Good thing you're not on one of my boats, shipmate.

 

[Carolina Special]

When it comes to defense issues I find that regularly scanning the Real Clear Defense and Strategy Page web sites to be most helpful. You can't limit yourself to one viewpoint. But I do tend to look at most of what Austin Bay and Jim Dunnigan put out. I may be an amateur, but I try to be an informed one, and I do have a couple of army officers as relatives to straighten me out.

As for aircraft carriers being outmoded, the recent planned or in service construction by the Brits, Japanese and especially the Chinese suggest that other parties think they're still important in the next couple of decades. It is not just the US building new ones.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Well said on the technical aspects Blueman, but perhaps your time underwater has taken a toll on your social skills?

And thanks for your service!(I'm an Ex-Tin Can RM-2 who was stationed at New London/Groton Sub Base my last year of Naval service!)

 

[keelhauled]

I would say that the conversation devolved with the previous post, full of smug superiority and condescension. But I suppose that describes more of the forum these days than this one thread.