Navy Buys More Subs

Mauricio Gama January 1st, 2009 at 9:56 am

Very good news about the sub. I enjoyed ery much.

Grandjester January 1st, 2009 at 11:52 am

Bob, just WHO are these being built to fight?

Frank Andrews USN Ret January 1st, 2009 at 2:49 pm

(1)Ships never come in on time, prime example the newest carrier which will be commissioned before it’s even completed. The aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush will not even be complete before its Jan. 10 commissioning. Tugs are going to have to push it to NAVSTA NORVA. Nothing new though. The USS George H.W. Bush was scheduled to be delivered in April 2008. No info on cost overruns yet (probably classified). By the way, the previous CVN, the USS Reagan had the same problem, but only by a couple of months.
(2) To expect any ship or sub to come in on or below budget is either a joke or a “sea story”.
(3) My opinion of course, but do we need these ships. The “cold war” is over and we’re not involved in any arms war with our new enemies.
(4) This Country is broke. We can’t afford these new ships even IF we needed then. What are we going do, borrow money from China to build them based on the premise that someday we’ll need them to fight . .CHINA? I know Russia recently commissioned 1 single new sub, but most of her fleet lies rotting away because she can’t afford to fix them. A lesson that seems lost on us. I served on nine different ships over a period of 26 years and I’d bet my flat hat that I’m right on most, if not all of these opinions. We keep spending money like a drunken sailor, but when I was a drunken sailor, I spent MY OWN MONEY not the taxpayers. Just thought I’d share!

Travis January 1st, 2009 at 4:43 pm

I agree with you both,freedom isn’t free,it does cost.But the government needs to spend more on the ground equipment for the troops than 8 more subs.When I was stationed in germany,one of my friends was told that in the bunker he went to,there were enough warheads to nuke the world 10x’s over,and we need more subs?We have plenty of silos and subs,we don’t need anymore.I was in iraq in ’03 and we had no armor on our vehicles,they have gotten better but could definitley be improved.Why did the Air Force need a new fighter?what was wrong with the f-15?why couldn’t the marines and army get new attack helo’s?makes no sense,but that’s our government for ya!

David January 1st, 2009 at 5:22 pm

I believe the Virginia class are designed primarily for intelligence gathering and SEAL/special forces operations, not for strategic deterrence against Russia or China. So yes, we probably do need a few more now.

Cole January 1st, 2009 at 11:27 pm

We will not fight a future war with China if both of us are smart. Sales to the U.S., bonds they own, and the potential for nuclear war all work against such scenarios. Taiwan and mainland China are becoming more friendly anyway.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I have a nephew who was a Virginia class sub nuclear NCO and he has spent very little time at sea over his 8 or so years in the Navy. Meanwhile, the Army with just 38% of DoD active force structure is enduring about 65% of the DoD deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

It makes no sense to maintain so many carrier battle groups with each carrier requiring 6,000 personnel and the other group ships requiring other thousands. The sure thing is the continuing threat of Islamic terrorism and littoral conflicts. Even something like the Straits of Hormuz could require land forces to seize and hold that part of Iran if they attempted to close it.

You always need land forces and dedicating too many forces to wildly hypothetical major conflicts deterred by nukes makes no sense. Having too many enlisted slots in the Navy and Air Force also hampers recruitment for the Army because all potential recruits recognize where the greatest potential for danger and excessive deployments exists. Make the risks/deployments less lopsided and more/higher quality recruits would join the Army.

More littoral combat ships with smaller crews and the few DDG-1000s make sense. Aegis style ships make sense to protect against thousands of Chinese tactical ballistic missiles. More unattended and undersea vessels are required to find the diesel subs. 

The status quo and history of WWII Naval battles or Cold War open sea conflict is the Navy of yesteryear. Even China will never fight on the open sea with their subs poking along at 5 knots and one or two primitive aircraft carriers with poor aircraft operating off of them and little surface protection.

The fact that a diesel sub rose near a carrier coupled with growing capabilities of TBMs to target carriers will mean a greater reliance on long distance stealth bombers and fighter operations from Guam…not 11 carrier groups. Any U.S. surface ship can carry unmanned subs…it doesn’t need to be another manned sub.

jimghunter January 2nd, 2009 at 12:40 pm

I admit that I am biased. I served as a Recon Marine, Army Special Forces and as an Army Combat Engineer. I see things from the ground perspective. While there might be some justification for new subs, aircraft carriers, Air Force fighters, to do so at the expense of the grunts on the ground is unconscionable. Let’s take Afghanistan. No coasts. No air forces. Not much use for expensive subs or fighter jets; military transports, A-10 and helos, yes. No one is talking about new versions of those??? Yesterday, I read an account in a local paper about a soldier being killed in Iraq. He was a tanker, but he wasn’t in a tank. He was in a HumVee. I know for a fact that most soldiers who deploy do not do the job they were trained for or use the equipment that reflects their training. Put simply, artillerymen, tankers, etc, simply become police, not even infantrymen were trained for the urban fight and the restrictions placed upon them. In short, wars are won with grunts taking and holding ground. We need to focus our attention and funding there first. In a time of economic distress, there only.

Frank Andrews USN Ret January 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm

lfoley44 you might be right on a couple of accounts but you missed the thrust of my opinion. Of course I would expect a bubblehead to cry for additional subs, but at what cost? Money son! Where the hell does the money come from. Please don’t tell me “printing presses” even though that is true. We’re rushing 24/7 to print new money, (almost worthless, I might add) to buy E V E R Y T H I N G !! Shouldn’t BEING BROKE have some bearing on what we can build or buy? So when we close down our foreign computers, push away from our foreign desks and go watch our foreign TV’s we’ll all have time to figure where the hell we’re going to get the money to pay for all these new ships. I enlisted as a blackshoe in 1962 when a $20 bill would fill a grocery cart and our dollar was redeemable in silver upon demand. Do you suggest we just keep playing with today’s Monopoly Money to buy 8 new subs and to maintain 12 nuc carrier groups?
I have one more opinion to share, actually it was President George Washington’s at his farewell address to congress. “Beware of Foreign Entanglements.” If we don’t make more unnecessary wars, we don’t need new construction. Protect OUR Shores, Now and Always, but stop there. If we halted new construction for the US Navy right now we certainly wouldn’t be in the position of the neutralist US of the late 1930’s. We still have enough hardware to win any “REAL DECLARED WAR.”, and isn’t that is the only kind of war we should fight? Just a thought . .

Tim January 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 am

NO MONEY, NO MONEY, we can’t afford these, we don’t need these! I keep hearing this crap from people who really have NO CLUE why we are so broke. Yes, the Iraq/Afganistan wars and the money we waste buying engergy from other countries is a part of the problem and we could use that money here. But that is just the tip of the iceberg, since Defense spending is less than 1/8 the entire fed budget. IT’S ENTITLEMENTS STUPID! Over 2/3 of the fed budget is LOCKED up into entitlements. At least Defense spending creates good high paying jobs and taxes, but entitlements don’t. If you look at the numbers from both the CBO and OMB, you will find that there are 6 govt programs that add up exactly to the deficit every year. I forgot offhand 3, but I know that WELFARE, Foreign Aid, and Farm Aid are part of the problem. And now we want to give everyone FREE prescription drugs! To add insult to injury, we are borrowing money from China to pay for this crap! But that’s ok, as long as you babies get your NANNY STATE, who cares about defense. Hey, why don’t we just get rid of all defense spending and use that money for more Welfare so we can all sit around with our hands out. Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, etc., they just want to be our friends, can’t we all just get along? We can all just hold hands and sing Kumbbyya, Utopia here we come. I can’t believe how stupid this nation has become, our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. This country deserves to lose everything God has graciously given us. If we quit flushing our hard earned tax dollars down the toilet with all of this socialist spending, then we could afford all of these weapon systems,and a lot of them. BTW, Reagan’s defense build up in the 80’s was NOT the cause of the deficit. To get his defense projects through that Democrat Congress, he had to also sign the big-govt spending that the Dems wanted, otherwise he would not get his defense spending. Typical Socialist Democrats/RINO Repubs, hold our national security hostage for their entitlements.

Bernard Miller January 3rd, 2009 at 6:16 pm

As long as we continue to financiallly support other countries that use our dollars to build weapons of mass destruction and target us we must have the means to go after the terrorists of this world.
Submarines are one of the top five weapons that most nations lack. The new atomic subs are needed as our impact on the world as the stablizing force protectionn worldwide.
Obama is a concern especilally when it may affect the F=22 productrion; thus driving up the price of the next order because the manufacturer can’t afford to leave a producton line setting until more are needed. These contracts are multi-year that mobilizes materials and delivery milestones that funding must remain guaranteed to keep the cost’s down and insure the dominence. The greatest respect is the one most feared. The outlaws in the world must continue to hide their faces while rattling swords in order to remain unidentified; not any more they can find youi by just getting a picture of your eyes now. The reason for the cowardly demonstrating is to bolster crownds into a frenzy in hopes of finding supporters; the biggest deturent is reason enough not to take action against a countries assets. Fear is a deturent even when no action is eminant it demands respect. If Obama slows the production he will impact this nations markets and workforce. All the militaries are rebuilding their equipment to better protect our sons and daughteres when asked to go into harms way has all the tools to deliver our message to those stepping outside the bounds of appropriate conduct accepted to all around the world.
I fear Obama will be the next Jimmy CArter who single handedly drove our economy into it’s worst state since this country conception. Nothing he did turned out right. He still pays penance for his fraudulent attempt to force the country into other types of fuels; didn’t get anywhere then and its not likely this will ever happen. Check the price of corn now; so much of it is purchased to make biofuel, food markets may just loose corn as a sustinence.
The impact a President has on our position in the world is huge; remember Iran thumbing their noses at the U.S for 444 days detention of American Citizens; again Carter was President. Obama don’t follow his guidence; we will loose face with the world if Obama goes the way of the Do Do Bird. Stay strong maintain the best and the largest defense and we shall be there for the downtroden public that can’t protect themselves we will be there even when they don’t like us there they secretly are thankful until they are back on their feet. They have short memories; what have you done for me lately. Spend on defense and you can’t go wrong; the manufacture of defense projects hss added more of the worlds new inventions were funded initially by the defense industires. The jobs are there if Congress will stop sending our dollars over sea’s.

Anon January 4th, 2009 at 10:37 am

ALL
As we enter the First year of the end of the First 21st century decade, 2009CE, we are confronted with budgets debates, inaugaration WMD possibles, Israel/Hamas conflicts, decisions as to Aircraft, Subs, Littorel ships et al purchases. What a grand mix.
Still, the sun came up over the Big Muddy today, the local rains watered the rice paddies, and the cattle still graze in NE Ark.
Point is, the USA Electorate, much maligned, much in error since Nov., still has the USA Economy in hand. We, the people, still have the best interests of our families, our nation and our Military sons and daughters at heart. We, the people, who still run the nation, regardless of Ms. Pelosi dreams, will deal with all these problems. Perhaps not to the satisfaction of all, but the problems will be solved.
Procurement of HW, SW, Ships, Aircraft, Systems, for the DOD Military is BIG Business and yet, the actual decisions are made by; THE PEOPLE OF THE USA. Believe me, there are many mechanisms, this site is one, that influence and ultimately determine the end results.
end

john January 4th, 2009 at 9:55 pm

Where are they going to be built? Groton? There was this blip on the New England News Channel about reopening General Dynamics in Quincy, Mass. Maybe they will be prefabbed in Quincy and hauled to Groton for assembly, just like the old days..

Frank Andrews USN Ret January 5th, 2009 at 10:16 am

ALL
It doesn’t matter WHY this country is so broke, does it? The fact is we are broke and cranking out more and more worthless paper money isn’t going to make us rich. You want a new car or a big screen TV but you’re broke, right? Does anybody out there believe you can extract yourselves from poverty by borrowing more money. Evidently, besides most of our citizens, the Federal Government believes this is the road to travel. I believe this is the road from a first class nation to a nation of debtors. It’s all so simple that I can’t believe most people don’t get it.Unfortunately citizens can’t print up new money like the government can, but the lesson shouldn’t be lost on any of us. If you don’t have money to pay for it, Don’t Borrow with little or no expectation of being able to re-pay it. Tim, those ENTITLEMENTS you spoke of pay our military retirement, our social security, our Veterans Administration costs and survivors benefits. Do you suggest we scrap them, or would you only do away with ENTITLEMENTS that won’t personally effect you and yours?

pfcem January 5th, 2009 at 6:17 pm

Frank Andrews USN Ret,

Yes it DOES matter why the country is broke. It matters because CONTRARY to what some want you to believe it is NOT because we are spending too much on defense AND ‘saving’ 10s of billions of dollars a year cutting defense is going to do NOTHING when you are INCREASING spending by 100s of billions elsewhere.

It also matters because providing for the national defense IS a constitutionally mandated resposibility of the US Government where MOST of that the US Governement spends money on is not.

Not to mention the fact that failing to adequitely fund national defense now is GUARANTEED to cost more later…

Cole January 5th, 2009 at 9:28 pm

It is neither constitutionally mandated to spend too much on defense, not guaranteed to cost more if you are equally smart later spending the right amount on the right type of defense.

If the average KC-135R has reached only half of its potential airframe life…how is it saving money to retire them too early? If an upgraded A-10 can outperform the F-35 for many missions…how is that not cheaper? If buying 1,000 F-35s instead of 1760 allows you to eliminate the KC-Z buy, how is that not cheaper on two counts?

Finally, when the 5%-likely worst case scenario threat driving the F-22 can be easily serviced with 187 F-22s, 178 F-15 Golden Eagles, and 1,000 F-35As, coupled with hundreds of Navy/Marine F-35B/Cs and our allies, Patriots, Aegis, and bombers…why spend more??? 

Which costs more: operations, training, maintenance and upgrade of 187 F-22s for the next 30 years…or more maintenance, more training, an additional $25 billion in procurement, and more upgrades of 381 F-22s.

Which costs more in 2035? Do we replace 381 F-22s and 1760 F-35As with over 2100 future manned half billion dollar fighters…or does it cost less for the USAF to replace 187 F-22s and 1,000 F-35A with 600 manned $300 billion replacements and another 600 $150 million unmanned fighters…with many F-35A?B/Cs still around because you did not build them too fast and they still have airframe life remaining? And now you really don’t need the KC-Z.…

Which costs more: 30 VA class subs in a 2 per year buy at $3.5–4 billion annual cost completed by 2022…or 25 VA class subs built one a year for $2.2 billion so they are still in production in 2030…and a remaining $600 million is spent each year on undersea unmanned vessels. Years and quantities are no doubt incorrect but the principle is valid. 

Procurement delayed is procurement extended and the follow-on systems are also delayed decades from now. Unmanned systems procured at less expense…even if killed more frequently…will mean fewer letters written to grieving widows/parents, and fewer old unmanned fighters sitting in a boneyard in Tucson.

Frank Andrews USN Ret January 6th, 2009 at 8:29 pm

We should never keep borrowing money to buy every new sub, every new plane and every new weapons system that the Admirals and Generals want. I’m just an old salt that remembers the 70’s when we bought ships that we couldn’t deploy because they were not fully manned. I also remember being assigned to a DD Squadron that was limited to less than 30 operational days a quarter because the Navy couldn’t afford NSF (fuel). I know that there are old sailors out there who remember those days. Examples of what happens when a Navy is BROKE. Both happened after the last useless war (my generation’s) that we fought, the last “foreign entanglement” which the people of this country didn’t need or want. It wasted 56,000+ lives in country and untold numbers when we got back home. It didn’t do a damn thing to protect our shores but it sure was good for business. .The primary drivers of new military construction are the congressmen and senators in the area which will most benefit from the new construction. Most of these projects start out as a little pork and end up eating up every hard working taxpayers’ money. When the taxpayers’ money is gone, those same politicians simply say “CHARGE IT.”, knowing full well that they will probably be out of office, retired or dead before the final bill comes due. I strongly support necessary and productive Defense spending. I did my 25+ then shifted to the VA where I did an additional 16. I support the Constitution and Love my Country. But neither the Country or the Constitution are the cause of the accumulated debt that we will end up passing on to our Grandchildren. Sorry if my thoughts and opinions offended anybody out there. I have taken vows to support the Constitution for all of my adult life, but I refuse to support politicians and defense contractors who keep digging this country deeper and deeper in debt.

Cole January 7th, 2009 at 2:08 am

Once again pfcem “show” his unjustified arrogance and unbridled use of caps lock.;)

GDP = Consumption © + Investment (I) + forms of Government spending (G) + (Exports — Inports)

2008 consumers spend far more than inflation would justify since the Carter era on:

- rent and health care © (how much are drug/ health care expenses surpassing inflation,10%?)

- mortgages (I) (my mom’s house in Silicon Valley was worth about $150K in the late 70s and today is worth $900K even with the housing downturn) 

- new products/services like computers/video games/DVDs/cell phones/HDTV/I-Pods often bought using overextended credit cards ©

- government earmarks and handouts (G)

You look at the above and assume that GDP growth actually means something? Heck when you spend more on defense and give more money to banks and GM/Chrysler, you increase GDP and thus increase that 4% dramatically!!;)

In addition, sounds like you advocate spending for the sake of spending…kind of like that annual September exercise where government monies not yet spent, suddenly are, so the same money won’t disappear from next year’s budget.

Spend money on true defense needs for the actual threat and most prevalent form of conflict…not because some artificial formula and imagined scenario tells you to spend.

BTW, how big is that life cycle differential in fuel expense for Boeing’s KC vs. Northrup/EADS’s KC looking these days there buddy?? Think that 5.5% oil inflation rate is still valid? 

And just lookee how well it has worked out cowtowing to unions in the auto and steel biz…and you wanna follow suit for the KC buy?

pfcem January 7th, 2009 at 2:36 pm

dsueii,

Where have I EVER said we should “waste money on defense spending by buying the wrong weapons systems”?

What $900 billion in overruns and other unnecessary costs, the DOD yearly budget isn’t $900 billion, not even including all the supplimental war spending.

Sorry but England cutting the F-22 procurement had NOTHING whatsoever to do with saving money. That MAY be the ‘excuse’ you have fallen for but it is NOT the truth.

Jay January 7th, 2009 at 9:42 pm

This is as much about maintaining technology as anything else and could be done more economically accomplished by:

(1) Reducing the production rate
(2) Eliminating the co-production

Cole January 8th, 2009 at 8:25 am

Read elsewhere that they will have 18 of 30 VA class boats complete when this contract is done. Not sure how it works but lets assume that means they start the last two boats of this contract in 2013. If they get 2 a year after that for the final 12 subs, they would be starting the last 2 subs in 2019 and finishing them in 2023 (60 months to build).

Now what? It’s 2023 so some antsy Congressman/Senator in Mississippi and Connecticut will start applying pressure to keep building them to keep the assembly line open or the Navy will want to start building some follow-on all new sub. The cycle never ends and is sped up by trying to be too efficient in building two a year when one would suffice given the threat.

If they built one a year after 2013, the last replacement would be started in 2025 and complete at the end of 2029. That’s 6 more years that the production line is open and 6 more years those subs will be in the fleet so that future replacements are also commissioned 6 years later decades from now.

If the threat doesn’t dictate enough subs to produce economies of scale, why seek them? Instead seek to retain continuous production. Note that these would share the same larger tubes with the Ohio class Tactical Tridents. So we have those 4 boats and the 3 Seawolf plus 30 VA class…plus all the UUS that they and surface ships like the littoral combat ships can launch. 

Call me unpatriotic, but that just seems more than sufficient for any conceivable threat…especially since surface and airborne assets can perform many similar ISR, countermine, countersub, special ops, and cruise missile missions.

Meanwhile, Army SFC Snuffy will be sucking down his 5th year-long combat tour in Iraq/Afghanistan (a year apart) because 2 too many carrier battle groups suck up 14,000 servicemembers that would field four 3,500-man brigade combat teams to relieve the Army’s rotation requirements.

Cole January 8th, 2009 at 10:47 pm

This guy has a clue what the Naval threat will be in 2020:

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/03/chinese-submarines-vs-soviet-submarines.html

Make sure you read REM’s rebuttal in the comments…and then address how few Russian subs require a hefty Atlantic fleet these days.

Then consider technology quality of the respective Chinese vs. American subs and their munitions.

Then recall quality/quantity of other surface and airborne counter-submarine assets that we already have and that are coming: P8, LCS, UUV.

Don’t ignore the disparity in respective military budgets of both countries…and realize that when our economy is suffering, theirs and their defense budget is depleted even more so.

Note Mr. Grant’s reference that all newer VA-class subs will have the two larger tubes…these expedite resupply and allow dual-crewing to get VA-class back on station sooner ala our nuke boomers.

I know diddly about subs but basic research rapidly refutes alarmist propaganda. Any research reveals that adding Army and Marine servicemembers will cost the DoD an enormous amount. Some force structure trade-offs would save the DoD money bringing greater parity in servicemember sacrifice while still addressing all real world projectable air-land-sea threats.

However, submariners deploy more than all other Sailors and carrier battle groups have the most force structure and largest advantage over other countries, making it obvious where trade-offs should start.

BTW, pfcem, your link illustrates that if we bought single VA class subs through the end of 2029 there would still be ample LA-class subs on line then and for some years to come. If you want a never ending cycle, continued purchase of a single VA-class per year would be more than adequate beyond 2030 allowing the Navy to spend nearly $2 billion annually on other same-mission surface and airborne systems to relieve the burden on submariners. LCS and P8 are a great start.

If you built subs that lasted 40 years (already at 33 years) you could have 40 on line at all times with one large sub purchase per year, and far more smaller UUV built with some of the annual $2 billion savings.

pfcem January 9th, 2009 at 12:02 am

Cole,

So in 2020 the ONLY thing we will need subs for is to counter a Chinese sub fleet. LOL

And since you have an OBVIOUS comprehension problem.…the link I provided shows that 47 LA class subs will be decommissioned between 2009 & 2029 with NONE LEFT IN 2030. That means that in order to maintain the same number of subs you NEED to commission 47 NEW subs from 2009–2029. That is MORE THAN TWO SUBS A YEAR.

Frank Andrews USN Ret January 9th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

Overspending right now is NOT the issue. ANY SPENDING right now is the issue. Defense spending is not the cause of our financial ilness, it’s just a big part of it. If you asked planners in any Government Department if they were the blame for our country being broke, they would all say the same thing as Defense. They would tell you that they’re not the cause, it’s everybody else. In a way they are all right, but the fact remains, combine all the “theys” together and the cause and scope becomes evident. Everybody is spending money that doesn’t exist. Ever wonder who received all the money that was lost in stock markets? The answer is NOBODY because the money never existed in the first place. It’s the same with all government spending today, the money doesn’t really exist. It’s all on paper and the paper itself becomes more worthless every fiscal year. It doesn’t matter how badly you need something, if you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. That includes spending on entitlements and defense. Personally I know that Defense is more important than entitlements but try selling that to everyone lined up at the government teats. The government doesn’t make money, they simply TAKE money from us. When we don’t have any money left they sell Federal notes and bonds to China and Russia. They in turn use that money to (among other things) fund new weapon systems. Way back in the beginning of these posts I mentioned that the Russian Fleet in rotting because of a lack of money for upkeep. Evidently, that lesson is still going to be lost on us. I guess we’ll just keep cranking out worthless 50’s and 100’s till we run out of ink.

pfcem January 10th, 2009 at 5:54 pm

Frank Andrews USN Ret,

No, defense spending is not a big part of it of our financial ilness.

***

Cole,

It is not China, or Russia, or Iran, or Venezuela or anybody else that is the ‘problem’. It is ALL OF THEM & MANY, MANY MORE! The NONSENSE that you are ‘prescribing’ is equivalent to trying to keep wild animals out of your yard but only putting a fence up on one or two sides and IGNORING the other sides since ‘the animals only appear to come from one or two directions’.

Tenn Slim January 17th, 2009 at 10:27 am

ALL
Sub building means jobs for the NE. No other srategic reason. I hope we do, in fact, build these contracted subs.
My Opine.
The Leftist, ANTISM, Code Pink, groups will raise such a fuss after the Inaugaration, that the contract will be cancelled, in the name of saving the Nation. Not a pretty sight.
Semper Fi.
end

silent service April 25th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

Its a good thing that our congress isn’t as short sighted as alot of you. China has a growing nuclear submarine program that could cause quite a problem in the future. Not to mention that the Russians are selling 3 submarines to Venezuela!! hugo is as crazy as it gets and hes really not that far away.

Limit our sea power and have to spread it out… or keep our selves safe and buy the necessary subs to get the job done.