The Ship Model Forum

Ever since McNamara, there has been a "one size fits all" mentality, but I would suggest that this attribute/desire eminates from Congress as much as from the military. Or, to put it another way, you design in order to get funding though Congress and the way to do that is request a multipurpose system that does a lot of things passably well, rather than requesting multiple systems, each performing one thing superbly.

At any rate, here's the second "article" in this series: http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications ... le__A_.pdf

A look at the bios of the authors at the beginning might be enlightening.

_________________
Russ

This is the slide presentation to accompany the prior papers.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications ... a_Batt.pdf

_________________
Russ

Russ,

Thanks for the link to the second part. It'll take some time to digest.

I took a look at the bios. On the one hand, it's an impressive group resume of experience and exposure. On the other hand, these are the people partly responsible for the current overstressed military, ill-prepared strategy and tactics that we're paying in blood to learn/relearn, and bankrupt Navy. So, I don't know what to make of them. I guess I'll take their work at face value and see. Part 1 was unimpressive. Part 2 awaits.

Regards,
Bob

Paris (AFP) July 21, 2010
The head of the US Navy warned Wednesday of China's "opaque" intentions behind its growing naval might as it seeks to use sea power to bolster its strength on the world stage.
"The navy is growing to assure the flow of resources" to China's booming economy and is "developing very, very good capabilities," Admiral Gary Roughead, US chief of naval operations, told reporters in Paris.

"They are moving forward with a navy that is being seen more... in areas further from their homeland," he said.

"It's important to develop a cooperative relationship with the (Chinese) navy because they are somewhat opaque when it comes to intentions," he added.

"It's important that that becomes clearer not simply to us but all countries in the region and beyond."

_________________
Russ

Some comments about the discussion generating "article" and its authors are such that ther is some question as to the level of authority with which they speak. I just ran across this article on a speech given by Defense Secretary Gates to the Navy League.

Ask Washington’s defense cognoscenti to name the most influential think tank in town and I wager most would say the Center for New American Security (CNAS). While that may be true in terms of shaping the counterinsurgency strategy being applied in the current wars, when it comes to leaving a lasting mark on the future size and shape of the military, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made clear in his speech yesterday at the Navy League’s annual conference that the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is the real brain trust.

At his first appearance before the Navy fraternity, Gates delivered what will be remembered as the beginning of the most radical transformation of the Navy since the fleet peaked at 592 ships in 1989 and then promptly shrunk. Actually, what’s coming is likely to be even more “radical” as the post-Cold War demobilization hit the fleet with proportional cuts across all platforms. Gates wants to change the fleet’s very makeup. And he cribbed heavily from CSBA in his speech outlining the plan.

Gates began by reminding his audience of the size and striking power of the current battle fleet. “It is important to remember that, as much as the U.S. battle fleet has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, the rest of the world’s navies have shrunk even more. So, in relative terms, the U.S. Navy is as strong as it has ever been,” he said. That bit, and the assessment of the fleet’s comparative combat power that followed, is straight out of Bob Work’s CSBA monograph, “The U.S. Navy: Charting a Course for Tomorrow’s Fleet” (.pdf). Work of course has since left CSBA and is now navy undersecretary.

Gates borrowed from CSBA president Andrew Krepinevich’s Foreign Affairs article, “The Pentagon’s Wasting Assets,” when he said the U.S. “virtual monopoly” on precision weapons is eroding, long-range precision anti-ship missiles are proliferating, putting carriers and “other large, multi-billion dollar blue-water surface combatants” at risk of becoming “wasting assets.”

Read the full article here:
http://defensetech.org/2010/05/04/gates ... #more-6923

_________________
Russ

The level of authority associated with the paper was not the issue. Indeed, as stated, the resumes of the authors are quite impressive. The issue is the level of competence. Authority does not necessarily equate to competency. One may speak and act with both total authority and total incompetence. History and our government are rife with examples. In fact, that situation may be more the rule than the exception!

The track record over the last decade or so strongly suggests that whomever is (or has been) acting in authority for the military is acting at a less than competent level. We can run through the litany of failed programs, runaway costs, improperly configured and outfitted units, poorly conceived strategies, etc. The point is that the authors were, as indicated by their own resumes, intimately involved with creating the lamentable situation the military (and Navy, in particular) is in. Thus, the level of competence of the authors is, in my mind, highly suspect.

Food for thought.

Regards,
Bob

On the other hand, they are seemingly pointing away from super expensive, to build and to operate, carriers toward less expensive capital ships.
Pre WWII, the Navy was ruled by the battleship admirals. Now its ruled by the carrier/sub admirals. Maybe the sweet spot lies in between with strike groups divided between carrier centered and surface centered.

_________________
Russ

Russ,

I've read both the cited articles and I don't really see any specific recommendations along those lines. I may have missed something (it's a lot of reading!). Where did you note that?

Thanks,
Bob

Gates' comments to Navy League.
Plus, logically, if a capital ship is needed with something approaching or exceeding the strike capability of a carrier but costing less than a carrier, that leaves you with cruisers or larger.

The carrier is the most expensive weapon system out there. And when you add in the cost of the aircraft and air personnel it only gets worse. The Ford class, 4 ships, is headed for $13.5 billion each. You can get a get a lot of ships for 54 billion. And the way technology is moving, they may well end up being very expensive UAV carriers.

_________________
Russ

Referring to the Gates speech article, he appears to draw all the wrong conclusions. For instance,

-Because anti-access is getting tougher, he concludes that we need fewer carriers (they're obsolete, is the implication). Wrong. We need more since they are the only sustainable, flexible, and powerful enough unit to deal with tougher anti-access scenarios.

-In Gates words as reported in the article, "... LCS of course, because its cheap enough to be built in large numbers and can go places 'too dangerous for the Navy’s big, blue-water surface combatants.'" Cheap enough??? At near $1B per copy? A virtually unarmed ship can go places that are too dangerous for a Tico/Burke/Carrier Battle Group????

-Again, Gates says, “Do we really need eleven carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?” Our needs should be determined by our objectives not by what other countries do or do not have. No other country has taken on our worldwide missions and roles.

I'm afraid that Gates is a nut case who is leading us into a very bad state.

Regards,
Bob

By the way, I have yet to see any documented statement by Gates or any other defense official that suggests replacing carrier strike power with a cruiser type ship/group such as we've discussed in this forum. A lot of officials have made it clear that they believe that carriers are becoming unaffordable but none have suggested a means to replace their striking power.

Has anyone out there seen any official statement along those lines?

Regards,
Bob

Whooops! Looks like that "article" deserves more consideration.

By ERIC TALMADGE, Associated Press Writer Eric Talmadge, Associated Press Writer – Thu Aug 5, 5:43 pm ET
ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON – Nothing projects U.S. global air and sea power more vividly than supercarriers. Bristling with fighter jets that can reach deep into even landlocked trouble zones, America's virtually invincible carrier fleet has long enforced its dominance of the high seas.

China may soon put an end to that.

U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — The USS George Washington supercarrier recently deployed off North Korea in a high-profile show of U.S. sea power. AP Tokyo News Editor Eric Talmadge was aboard the carrier, and filed this report.

___

Analysts say final testing of the missile could come as soon as the end of this year, though questions remain about how fast China will be able to perfect its accuracy to the level needed to threaten a moving carrier at sea.

The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China's role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington's ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China's 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline.

While a nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, assuming its user was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels, the conventionally-armed Dong Feng 21D's uniqueness is in its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pin-point precision.

The Chinese Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to the AP's request for a comment.

Funded by annual double-digit increases in the defense budget for almost every year of the past two decades, the Chinese navy has become Asia's largest and has expanded beyond its traditional mission of retaking Taiwan to push its sphere of influence deeper into the Pacific and protect vital maritime trade routes.

"The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. "The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose."

Setting the stage for a possible conflict, Beijing has grown increasingly vocal in its demands for the U.S. to stay away from the wide swaths of ocean — covering much of the Yellow, East and South China seas — where it claims exclusivity.

It strongly opposed plans to hold U.S.-South Korean war games in the Yellow Sea off the northeastern Chinese coast, saying the participation of the USS George Washington supercarrier, with its 1,092-foot (333-meter) flight deck and 6,250 personnel, would be a provocation because it put Beijing within striking range of U.S. F-18 warplanes.

The carrier instead took part in maneuvers held farther away in the Sea of Japan.

U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate.

"We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world," Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week.

But the new missile, if able to evade the defenses of a carrier and of the vessels sailing with it, could undermine that policy.

"China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back," said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable — against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War.

Carrier-killing missiles "could have an enduring psychological effect on U.S. policymakers," he e-mailed to The AP. "It underscores more broadly that the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II. The stark reality is that sea control cannot be taken for granted anymore."

Yoshihara said the weapon is causing considerable consternation in Washington, though — with attention focused on land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — its implications haven't been widely discussed in public.

Analysts note that while much has been made of China's efforts to ready a carrier fleet of its own, it would likely take decades to catch U.S. carrier crews' level of expertise, training and experience.

But Beijing does not need to match the U.S. carrier for carrier. The Dong Feng 21D, smarter, and vastly cheaper, could successfully attack a U.S. carrier, or at least deter it from getting too close.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of the threat in a speech last September at the Air Force Association Convention.

"When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the U.S. symmetrically — fighter to fighter or ship to ship — and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options," he said.

Gates said China's investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, along with ballistic missiles, "could threaten America's primary way to project power" through its forward air bases and carrier strike groups.

The Pentagon has been worried for years about China getting an anti-ship ballistic missile. The Pentagon considers such a missile an "anti-access," weapon, meaning that it could deny others access to certain areas.

The Air Force's top surveillance and intelligence officer, Lt. Gen. David Deptula, told reporters this week that China's effort to increase anti-access capability is part of a worrisome trend.

He did not single out the DF 21D, but said: "While we might not fight the Chinese, we may end up in situations where we'll certainly be opposing the equipment that they build and sell around the world."

Questions remain over when — and if — China will perfect the technology; hitting a moving carrier is no mean feat, requiring state-of-the-art guidance systems, and some experts believe it will take China a decade or so to field a reliable threat. Others, however, say final tests of the missile could come in the next year or two.

Former Navy commander James Kraska, a professor of international law and sea power at the U.S. Naval War College, recently wrote a controversial article in the magazine Orbis outlining a hypothetical scenario set just five years from now in which a Deng Feng 21D missile with a penetrator warhead sinks the USS George Washington.

That would usher in a "new epoch of international order in which Beijing emerges to displace the United States."

While China's Defense Ministry never comments on new weapons before they become operational, the DF 21D — which would travel at 10 times the speed of sound and carry conventional payloads — has been much discussed by military buffs online.

A pseudonymous article posted on Xinhuanet, website of China's official news agency, imagines the U.S. dispatching the George Washington to aid Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

The Chinese would respond with three salvos of DF 21D, the first of which would pierce the hull, start fires and shut down flight operations, the article says. The second would knock out its engines and be accompanied by air attacks. The third wave, the article says, would "send the George Washington to the bottom of the ocean."

_________________
Russ

Russ,

Let's use some calm, common sense here. Do you really believe that the Chinese, whose weapon systems are generally a generation or two behind, have suddenly leapfrogged and developed a missile that's beyond even our capabilities? Is it perhaps more likely that a missile of pedestrian capability has been announced in glowing terms as a propoganda measure? Consider, for a moment, the near hysterical reaction thus far. I've seen sensationalistic articles, such as this one, that proclaim the complete and total demise of the carrier, rendered obsolete by a simple Chinese announcement.

Consider the depth and quality of the article's reporting. For instance, it makes zero mention of the fact that carrier battle groups are protected by several Aegis ships which were designed specifically to deal with saturation attacks by hundreds of supersonic Soviet "carrier-killer" missiles. Instead, the article suggests that carriers are merely floating targets, totally defenseless.

However, even within this article, note this quote buried well towards the end:

This is the only sane sentence in the article. The meanest, baddest missile in the world is useless without accurate over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting, a capability that we have not yet been able to develop. The best we can do is, if (and that's a very hit or miss "if") we can identify a target area, we can launch missiles that will perform a search pattern to try to find a target within the general area. The Chinese, from perusing open source literature, have nothing even remotely approaching our OTH capabilities and ours aren't very good.

It is far more likely that the Chinese have developed some run of the mill missile and are using wildly exagerated claims about its capabililty to achieve their goals of reducing our carrier development and keeping us out "their" seas. In that respect, they appear to be succeeding!

I would also suggest, that the Navy is probably enthusiastically embracing the Chinese announcement since they will be able to use that fear to sell Congress on new, more expensive ships to counter the threat. Want a bigger budget? Play up the capabilities of your enemy!

In summary, you can take a stick and carve it into the shape of a missile and call it a carrier-killer but that doesn't make it one. As I stated before, the Navy should be aware of Chinese intentions and weapon development and take them seriously but this is not a game-changer.

It's up to people such as yourself (and it's clear from your various posts that you have a solid grasp of naval technology) to realistically evaluate this kind of reporting. Remember, journalists attempt to sensationalize everything they write. It's how they sell their work.

A better question to ask ourselves is why the Chinese are so focussed on keeping our carriers out of "their" seas? It's because they see the carrier as the only serious threat to them and they don't have a counter for it. They're trying to achieve by political and propoganda means what they can't achieve by technology. And again I'll say it, they're succeeding!

If you believe there's a more serious threat than what I've portrayed here, analyze it and tell me how and why it's a threat.

By the way, think about all the weapon systems that we've announced and described in glowing terms that have completely failed to come about. Just because the Chinese have announced a weapon system doesn't mean that it exists and will do what they claim. Remember all the Soviet ships and weapons from the Cold War that turned out to be far less effective than what they were claimed.

Enough of this, I've got to get back to my Mandarin lessons so I'll be ready for our upcoming surrender to the Chinese next year.

I think that underestimating your potential opponent is decidedly unwise, especially a potential opponent that operates a successful worldwide industrial espionage operation. Whether or not that particular weapon is successful, I see in that Associated Press article an open acknowledgement that China seeks and is working toward control of the Western Pacific to a distance far beyond an economic zone or territorial waters recognized by international agreements. In a sense, China is seeking to do precisely what Japan tried to do, just less blatantly. That missile essentially says to nations of the Western Pacific that they shouldn't rely on the US for protection.

_________________
Russ

Now, that's quite correct and that's the part we should be focussed on and worried about. Of course, it's not new. China has for decades both openly stated, and by their actions demonstrated, that that is precisely their long term goal.

The Navy has nothing to fear from this missile but the US should be quite concerned about our ability to project power into that region; a region that is woefully short on friendly basing. The most effective weapon system we have in such circumstances is the carrier battle group. Unfortunately, instead of maintaining carrier levels (or better, increasing them) we're all but committed to dropping to 8-9 carriers in the near future.

There is a war currently ongoing for control of that region. China knows it and is actively waging it (and has been for decades). Unfortunately, the US is unaware of it or chooses to ignore it. The fact that the war is being waged with politics and propaganda rather than bullets makes it no less a war. Sadly, China is winning. One day we'll wake up and find that the war is over and we lost without even realizing that we were in it.

I did some further digging into this Chinese wonder missile. Here's a quote from the World Affairs Board (worldaffairsboard.com):

"Experts say the Dong Feng’s basic design isn’t much different from the Cold War-era Pershing II developed by the United States. But it’s the land-based platform, the payload and the capability of a ballistic missile to redirect in mid-flight that especially concerns U.S. strategists."

This is exactly what I said about the missile being a generation or two behind. Further, the announcement about the missile is just that, an announcement. As far as anyone can tell, there is no evidence that such a missile actually exists. An object purported to be the missile was showcased in a parade, however, there have been no test flights reported in the public literature. Accuracy claims (read propaganda) are based on theoretical calculations (as a bit of perspective, none of our weapon systems have ever met their theoretical claims, why would the Chinese). For all intents and purposes, this appears to be a "wish list" weapon whose only value is its propanganda effect on us. And again, in that respect, it's been wildly successful.

This missile is claimed to have a 1500 - 2000 mile range with mid course correction capability. I'm sorry, but what Chinese (or US, for that matter) targetting system has a 2000 mile range?! None. You can launch a missile that will travel ten times around the world but if you don't know where the target is, it's useless.

Russ is correct that it's never a good idea to underestimate an opponent. On the other hand, we're seeing the result of grossly overestimating. People are pronouncing the carrier obsolete and dead, all without ever seeing this supposed missile fired or having the slightest evidence that it exists.

Regards,
Bob

Looks like the Chinese somehow manage to get the technology they need. In addition to US tech, theyt also get Russian tech in that Moscow has delivered the Mach 4.5 Anti-ship cruise missile to China. And you know reverse engineering and theft of intellectual property are a Chinese forte.


Bill Gertz INSIDE THE RING
-

4:45 a.m., Thursday, October 15, 2009
President Obama recently shifted authority for approving sales to China of missile and space technology from the White House to the Commerce Department -- a move critics say will loosen export controls and potentially benefit Chinese missile development.

The president issued a little-noticed "presidential determination" Sept. 29 that delegated authority for determining whether missile and space exports should be approved for China to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.

Commerce officials say the shift will not cause controls to be loosened in regards to the export of missile and space technology.

Eugene Cottilli, a spokesman for Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security, said under new policy the U.S. government will rigorously monitor all sensitive exports to China.

The presidential notice alters a key provision of the 1999 Defense Authorization Act that required that the president notify Congress whether a transfer of missile and space technology to China would harm the U.S. space-launch industry or help China's missile programs.

The law was passed after a late-1990s scandal involving the U.S. companies Space Systems/Loral and Hughes Electronics Corp.

Both companies improperly shared technology with China and were fined $20 million and $32 million, respectively, by the State Department after a U.S. government investigation concluded that their know-how was used to improve China's long-range nuclear missiles.

Section 1512 of the 1999 law requires the president to certify to Congress in advance of any missile equipment or technology exports to China that the export will not harm the U.S. space-launch industry and that "missile equipment or technology, including any indirect technical benefit that could be derived from such export, will not measurably improve the missile or space launch capabilities of the People's Republic of China."


Henry Sokolski, director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said restoring Commerce Department control over the sensitive experts is a "step backward."

"It's as though Commerce's mishandling of missile-tech transfers to China in the 1990s never happened," said Mr. Sokolski, a former Pentagon proliferation specialist. "But it did. As a result, we are now facing much more accurate, reliable missiles from China."

Mr. Sokolski said he expects the U.S. government under the new policy to again boost Chinese military modernization through "whatever renewed 'benign' missile technology" is approved.

"It was foolish for us to do this in the 1990s and is even more dangerous for us to do now," he said.

Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, which monitors export control policies, said he was surprised by the decision to shift responsibility back to Commerce -- a change that Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush did not make.

"It is shocking that it would be delegated to the secretary of commerce, whose job it is to promote trade, rather than to the secretary of state or the secretary of defense, who have far more knowledge and responsibility within their organizations for missile technology," Mr. Milhollin said.Mr. Milhollin said a similar delegation of power would have been criticized in previous administrations. "In fact, the delegation turns the present law upside down because Congress passed it after finding that the Commerce Department had improperly helped China import U.S. missile technology in the 1990s," he said.

Edward Timperlake, a Pentagon technology-security official during the George W. Bush administration, said he agrees that the new policy likely will loosen export controls on dual-use technology that could be used to boost China's large-scale missile program.

China's military recently displayed new long-range and cruise missiles during a military parade in Beijing marking the 60th anniversary of communist rule.

"It looks like we're going to have Loral-Hughes part two," Mr. Timperlake said of the policy shift.

_________________
Russ

Here's another item dated 2007

Thursday, May 17, 2007

‘Latest Chinese missile technology to target US carriers’

TOKYO: China plans to equip its upcoming missiles with infrared technology to give them the ability to hit US warships in Asia, a Japanese newspaper said on Wednesday.

The upgrade is part of preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory and which has a security pact with the United States, the Sankei Shimbun said.

Citing unnamed military sources in Japan and Taiwan, the conservative newspaper said that China was developing an infrared detection system for its medium-range Dongfeng-21 missiles so they can pinpoint warships.

The upgraded Dongfeng would discourage the United States or Japan from sending in their warships equipped with the Aegis technology designed to shoot down incoming missiles, the newspaper said. The Dongfeng-21 has a range of some 2,150 kilometers (1,350 miles). The Sankei estimated that around 100 are deployed.

Western analysts have also speculated that China is also developing a next-generation long-range Dongfeng-41 capable of hitting the US mainland.

Beijing has repeatedly threatened to invade Taiwan, where nationalists fled in 1949 after losing the civil war to Mao Zedong’s communists, if the island declares formal independence.

The United States and Japan in a first-of-a-kind statement in February 2005 declared that a peaceful resolution of Taiwan Strait issues was a common strategic objective of the Pacific allies.

_________________
Russ

2008

Retired Rear Adm. Eric Vadon, a consultant on East Asian defense affairs, thought the weapon sounded like a Dong Feng 21 (DF-21) missile, also known by its western designation CSS-5. Although the basic missile has been in service since the 1970s, the Chinese are known to be working to turn it into a homing ballistic missile.

"There's a possibility that what we're seeing is that somebody is calling this thing a cruise missile because it has some of those characteristics," Vadon said. "It maneuvers and it homes in. But a cruise missile breathes air."

The Chinese targetable ballistic missile threat has long worried U.S. Navy planners and military professionals.

"We're pretty certain the Chinese have been working on this for some time," said Bernard Cole, a professor at National Defense University in Washington and an expert on the Chinese military. "It would pose a threat. I don't know how you would counter that missile."

But Cole said the description of a ballistic missile turning into a cruise missile is new: "I've never heard this described this way."

Sources in the Pentagon said the U.S. Navy has not yet moved to add the BMD upgrade to any more existing Aegis ships. But a senior defense official confirmed the Navy is embracing BMD as a mission for Aegis surface combatants - and that all the new DDG 51s the Navy is asking for will be BMD-capable.

McCullough also said that the destroyer modernization program, which will start in 2011 with the oldest ships, will include signal processors "with inherent ballistic missile defense capability." Those electronics will make the ships more easily upgradeable should the service choose to add the BMD upgrade.

Even if the Pentagon and Congress approve the request to build more DDG 51s, the new ships won't start to come on line until at last 2015, estimated Eric Labs of the Congressional Budget Office, who also testified at the July 31 hearing.

Again, this just reinforces the point that Chinese technology is a generation or two behind. Infrared? Geez, how long have we had that? This is no threat although it is a trend to pay attention to.

As far as the item about selling missile technology to China, that's unbelieveable. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot!

Regards,
Bob