|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/D__Mitch/status/1722165286294483233 isn't this the point where you consider building new boats or are destroyers somenow now battleship expensive
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
i don't know much about boats, but i do know that taking a functioning weapon and slapping all sorts of dumb poo poo onto it is a time-honored american pastime
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 04:02
|
|
|
Pretty much, Iowa-class battleships were $100 million in 1939, which is 2.2 billion today, and Arleigh Burke class destroyers cost $1.8 billion now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 04:02
|
|
|
Danann posted:isn't this the point where you consider building new boats or are destroyers somenow now battleship expensive let me introduce you to a little old boat called Zumwalt
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 04:05
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Navy officers are still mad about the OHP Class frigates, I see. I feel like Larry Bond has this particular tic because in "Cauldron" he sets up this whole scene where a USN SAG is under attack by Exocets and a missile gets through because the OH Perry's single SM2 launcher (in the back of the ship) couldn't keep up with the barrage of missiles as compared to the Leahy-class cruiser's front-and-rear akimbo SAM launchers Danann posted:isn't this the point where you consider building new boats or are destroyers somenow now battleship expensive it's a problem when you can't build new boats fast enough so you have to keep bolting-on new poo poo to your existing boats
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
Danann posted:isn't this the point where you consider building new boats or are destroyers somenow now battleship expensive they're the largest surface combatants we (or anybody else, really) make so yeah they're battleship expensive
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
Generals we need a battle plan and force equipped to fight an enemy that may actually shoot back. Confused looks across the room.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 04:33
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:the US Air Force wanted a manned space program so loving bad and kept pushing for one for decades, including at various times a manned surveillance space station, a mass produced Air Force variant of the Gemini capsule, and an Air Force spaceplane, but were consistently unable to come up with anything in particular for the hypothetical Air Force astronauts to actually do The mistake the usaf made was not getting their astronauts to spacewalk and re entry on asbestos surfboards with rock and roll music.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 04:39
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:Generals we need a battle plan and force equipped to fight an enemy that may actually shoot back. What's funny is that the entire program was only intended to interdict the Ho Chi Minh trail and then the aircraft just kind of hung around because of bureaucratic inertia before being latched onto by pop culture. Could they have formed the same attachment to any Operation Barrel Roll aircraft?      
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:What's funny is that the entire program was only intended to interdict the Ho Chi Minh trail and then the aircraft just kind of hung around because of bureaucratic inertia before being latched onto by pop culture. Well they didn't have any B24s left so I guess they just slapped something together and called it new.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 05:09
|
|
|
I have questions
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 05:57
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:they're the largest surface combatants we (or anybody else, really) make so yeah they're battleship expensive The real battleship expensive part of battleships by the end was the crew size. ~1,800 people is a lot to train, sustain, and pay compared to ~300.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 06:30
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The real battleship expensive part of battleships by the end was the crew size. ~1,800 people is a lot to train, sustain, and pay compared to ~300. Hear me out... Battleships but with lean mean agile minimal manning. Each enlisted crew gets upwards of 3 hours sleep a night due to all their duty stations. But the savings are well worth it, I assure you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 07:20
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:Hear me out... Battleships but with lean mean agile minimal manning. Each enlisted crew gets upwards of 3 hours sleep a night due to all their duty stations. But the savings are well worth it, I assure you. [battleship loses a fight with a bulk freighter]
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 07:22
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:What's funny is that the entire program was only intended to interdict the Ho Chi Minh trail and then the aircraft just kind of hung around because of bureaucratic inertia before being latched onto by pop culture. genuine question, is the mic still capable of developing vehicles or weapons systems for specific conflicts or is it like the iphone where there’s a weapons program roadmap based on projected market conditions … ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 07:25
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:genuine question, is the mic still capable of developing vehicles or weapons systems for specific conflicts or is it like the iphone where there’s a weapons program roadmap based on projected market conditions … ? it is, for example israel has a bunch of bespoke garbage it made specifically so they didn't have to worry about people throwing rocks at them which are currently being exploded by people with actual weapons
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 08:22
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:i don't know much about boats, but i do know that taking a functioning weapon and slapping all sorts of dumb poo poo onto it is a time-honored american pastime tactilol boat
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 09:26
|
|
|
Doesn't Israel made the police patrol tank because all the other American tanks are too heavy? Also I don't think they can make a smaller and different nuclear sub for Australia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 11:30
|
|
|
can they even make nuclear subs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 11:36
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:it is, for example israel has a bunch of bespoke garbage it made specifically so they didn't have to worry about people throwing rocks at them which are currently being exploded by people with actual weapons
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 12:05
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:genuine question, is the mic still capable of developing vehicles or weapons systems for specific conflicts or is it like the iphone where there’s a weapons program roadmap based on projected market conditions … ? The fact that the iPhone comes out every year instead of every 20 should answer your question
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 12:19
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:it is, for example israel has a bunch of bespoke garbage it made specifically so they didn't have to worry about people throwing rocks at them which are currently being exploded by people with actual weapons You're telling me kids throwing rocks at IDF legitimately weakened the Israeli military? Incredible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 12:46
|
|
|
Also, we gave Ukraine all of the vehicles designed for patrolling on Iraqi roads (and not making headlines back home) and told them to use them like M113s to assault dug in motor rifle regiments. Our RG MRAPs were literally designed in Apartheid South Africa for patrolling the townships, make of that what you will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 12:53
|
|
|
This article is incredible. It's making me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The Article posted:“In a scenario where you’re not able to just have free rein and fly over a friendly location for three hours, how do we beat our adversaries at that game?” the official said. “If they take away our ability to loiter for extended periods of time, what’s our counter-punch?” So they admit the AC-130 would be useless in a war. The Article posted:“This is a significant move,” Venable said. “In a high-intensity fight where you’ve got air-to-air threats and long-range [surface-to-air missiles], it would be relegated to a position — much like the [E-8] JSTARS, much like the [E-3 Sentry] AWACS — to where it would be almost combat ineffective in its current role. Again, useless in a real war. The Article posted:We will still need AC-130s to fly top cover in Africa; the same thing with our troops in Syria. But you still want to use it for colonial adventures. So why the gently caress are you taking the gun off? The Article posted:“What does the future fight look like?” the Air Force official said. “Do we need the 105[mm cannon]? … We don’t want to pigeonhole ourselves in strictly special operations. That’s where our expertise lies, [but] we also want to expand capabilities and offer something up to the joint force as well.” The Air Force would like to be able to "offer something up" in a war as well. The Article posted:If small cruise missiles are added to the AC-130J, the official said, the crew could eject them from the gunship’s ramp to be launched — potentially as palletized munitions, in which a container of multiple cruise missiles is slid out of a cargo plane and then fired in a barrage. Or, the official added, the missiles could be mounted and launched from the Ghostrider’s wings. The dumbass palletized cruise missile already exists, launched out the ramp of a normal C-130.  But the thing is the Air Force has loving other planes doesn't it. They have planes capable of launching missiles. Even fighters are meant to be able to launch nukes. Surely B-1s, B-2s, the new bomber are able to fire missiles. They're saying, ok, the AC-130 is going to be useless in a war, but we want to use it in a war, instead of using a war plane. This is quite literally just Call of Duty fetishism. The AC-130 was in Call of Duty, and is a recruiting tool, so they're obsessed with it and forget they have other planes. They desperately want it to be a Tu-22M but look like an AC-130. Zeppelin Insanity has issued a correction as of 13:00 on Nov 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 12:57
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:This article is incredible. It's making me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Idk, didn't they want to get rid of it for the longest time? Too cheap and slow. Buy more F-35. So spending some money to make it useless might be an interim step.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 13:06
|
|
|
Why not just copy the Tu-22M? Surely they can grift that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 13:07
|
|
|
This is very simple: The Air Force has other planes, the specific Special Operations Wings or whatever don't. They need to maintain their relevance (and career tracks of their officers) by finding a new mission for that aircraft, not ceding ground to pilots checked out on more relevant airframes. Put another way, it's how you ended up with this:   Why, yes, the USAF really only needed the F-100 and F-105 for Vietnam, and they were much better suited for moving mud than hot rod interceptors, but the F-102 and F-104 community were not going to let themselves get passed over for promotions and Pentagon postings. So they proved their relevance by carrying a pair of rocket pods rather than letting aircraft that carried as much ordnance as a WW2 medium bomber steal the show. The important thing was that the pilots checked out on those aircraft could log combat hours, and the officers commanding could put combat experience down when applying for Pentagon positions. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 13:14 on Nov 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 13:11
|
|
|
GoLambo posted:Just can't stop thinking about those Delta Force guys who decided to just scramble their brains into soup pulling double shifts standing too close to a 6 inch naval gun with a muzzle brake designed to punch your dick off, under a shaded tent with no entrenchment, shooting at max range against some guys who can't even shoot back at half that range. I don't think it was the tier one operators running the guns. I think they just tasked some marines to do it. Frosted Flake posted:Yep. Still no replacement either. I would bet money a better unit is available commercial off the shelf, with 24/7 support, at a fraction of that unit cost - just not from anyone in the military griftocomplex.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 13:26
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:But you still want to use it for colonial adventures. So why the gently caress are you taking the gun off? crysis suit voice: maximum grift
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 13:53
|
|
|
If all of the NFL got together I think they could put together an army that could beat the US military in a war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
Buffer posted:I don't think it was the tier one operators running the guns. I think they just tasked some marines to do it. yeah the spec ops guys have to get back to ft bragg to do a hit on their coke dealer by noon they just blow in, get the jarheads really high and agitated to do howitzer and then blow out of there firing rifles at random teen boys on a b-line to the airport
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
I found out today that CSIS is getting in trouble for using the army's favourite recruiting trick. They're hard up for IT guys, protective services (building security) and surveillance officers (people who sit in unmarked cars in front of mosques and take photos). They're flooded with applicants to be intelligence officers. What they've started doing, is telling people "oh yeah, just sign an open general contract. It's much easier to get into intelligence that way, once you're already in. We're really good at identifying talented people, so in no time at all you'll be in the field as an operative." which is exactly how a million people who wanted to be "snipers" or "special forces" ended up as clerks and cooks back in the GWOT. It's just funny that, you know, the prestigious organization that prides itself on the Old Boys' club that recruits Canadians who went to the Ivies and British universities also tricks morons into being janitors by dangling that in front of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
They got to fund movies starring a Canadian international spy. How about setting the first movie in Punjab.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 23:33
|
|
|
sounds like the easiest way to get yourself infiltrated tbh lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
I mean the Republican's response to Gaza was pretty much "Heh heh heh yeah...we can totally spin this to justify an invasion of Iran!" so yeah I would call them pretty loving clueless and stuck in 2003.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 06:16
|
|
|
It's a good thing the USA has such a great platform like the f35 to keep the skies secure into the future. https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/air-force-weighing-turning-t-7-into-f-7-armed-light-attack-jet-official/ "MADRID and WASHINGTON — A US Air Force official has revealed the service is actively considering a new, armed variant of the Boeing T-7A Red Hawk, dubbed F-7, which could potentially replace older F-16 fighter jets." Oh. Armed jet trainers it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 06:18
|
|
|
I wonder if it was in Madrid specifically because Spain uses the C-101 in the same way, a jet trainer that can also be armed.
skooma512 has issued a correction as of 06:32 on Nov 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 06:29
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:This is very simple: The Air Force has other planes, the specific Special Operations Wings or whatever don't. They need to maintain their relevance (and career tracks of their officers) by finding a new mission for that aircraft, not ceding ground to pilots checked out on more relevant airframes. Gonna disagree that the F-105 was better for Vietnam since its the only US aircraft to date to removed because of number of losses. North Vietnamese air defense totally owned them. God know what Warsaw Pact AD would have done to it in a hot war
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
KomradeX posted:Gonna disagree that the F-105 was better for Vietnam since its the only US aircraft to date to removed because of number of losses. North Vietnamese air defense totally owned them. God know what Warsaw Pact AD would have done to it in a hot war i think this is less because the f-105 was especially unsuited to vietnam and more because it was the plane that was the most exposed to aa fire due to its mission profile. the other century series planes would certainly not have fared any better if they had tried to do the same things that the f-105 did
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 06:59
|
|