User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:10:12 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as it is not coming out of your wallet, right? It comes out of all of our wallets; the fact is first you said the Marines were incompetent because they did nothing to improve our amphibious (over the beach, assault) capability but when it was pointed out we did in fact spend billions to both increase the current capability and move beyond what we can do no; you changed to you spent too much money. SO which is it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:21:41 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It comes out of all of our wallets; the fact is first you said the Marines were incompetent because they did nothing to improve our amphibious (over the beach, assault) capability but when it was pointed out we did in fact spend billions to both increase the current capability and move beyond what we can do no; you changed to you spent too much money. SO which is it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As long as it is not coming out of your wallet, right? It comes out of all of our wallets; the fact is first you said the Marines were incompetent because they did nothing to improve our amphibious (over the beach, assault) capability but when it was pointed out we did in fact spend billions to both increase the current capability and move beyond what we can do no; you changed to you spent too much money. SO which is it? So which is it? The U.S. Marine Corps spent "billions" or only spent $3 billion over the course of 13 years? Given that relatively minor level of effort in comparison with other U.S. Marine Corps programs, my point has been made. The U.S. Marine Corps was not really serious about the vehicle that directly supports its core mission. Also, the fact a person who claims to be a Marine is unconcerned with billions being spend with nothing to show for it is disturbing. Finally, assuming you get paid out of the treasury more than what you pay into the treasury in the form of federal taxes it does not come out of your wallet. Do not let accounting trickery fool you. You are on the government dole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:47:06 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So which is it? The U.S. Marine Corps spent "billions" or only spent $3 billion over the course of 13 years? Given that relatively minor level of effort in comparison with other U.S. Marine Corps programs, my point has been made. The U.S. Marine Corps was not really serious about the vehicle that directly supports its core mission. Also, the fact a person who claims to be a Marine is unconcerned with billions being spend with nothing to show for it is disturbing. Finally, assuming you get paid out of the treasury more than what you pay into the treasury in the form of federal taxes it does not come out of your wallet. Do not let accounting trickery fool you. You are on the government dole. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As long as it is not coming out of your wallet, right? It comes out of all of our wallets; the fact is first you said the Marines were incompetent because they did nothing to improve our amphibious (over the beach, assault) capability but when it was pointed out we did in fact spend billions to both increase the current capability and move beyond what we can do no; you changed to you spent too much money. SO which is it? So which is it? The U.S. Marine Corps spent "billions" or only spent $3 billion over the course of 13 years? Given that relatively minor level of effort in comparison with other U.S. Marine Corps programs, my point has been made. The U.S. Marine Corps was not really serious about the vehicle that directly supports its core mission. Also, the fact a person who claims to be a Marine is unconcerned with billions being spend with nothing to show for it is disturbing. Finally, assuming you get paid out of the treasury more than what you pay into the treasury in the form of federal taxes it does not come out of your wallet. Do not let accounting trickery fool you. You are on the government dole. It was actually a significant program by Marine standards but small in comparison to other DoD programs or it all other Gov programs. The 23 year program cost a third more than free government cell does in a year So your contention now is that military don't actually pay taxes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:06:55 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was actually a significant program by Marine standards but small in comparison to other DoD programs or it all other Gov programs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was actually a significant program by Marine standards but small in comparison to other DoD programs or it all other Gov programs. MV-22 program cost: $36 billion H-1 upgrade program cost: >$11 billion (Finding exact costs for this fiasco is difficult.) CH-53K program cost: $23 billion F-35B program cost: Almost no way to calculate what the cost of the U.S. Marine Corps requirements have added to this program, but it is safe to say that it will be $34 billion in just acquisition costs for the F-35B. $104 billion dedicated just so the U.S. Marine Corps can have their own dedicated air force. "Only" $3 billion put towards an amphibious assault vehicle. Three billion dollars with nothing to show for it. The 23 year program cost a third more than free government cell does in a year That comparison does not make either expenditure right nor justifiable. So your contention now is that military don't actually pay taxes? Oh, they go through the pro forma filing of taxes, but when it come down to math, unless you pay more to the federal government than you receive from the federal government, you don not really pay taxes. The federal government just takes back some of the money they give you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:53:48 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: MV-22 program cost: $36 billion H-1 upgrade program cost: >$11 billion (Finding exact costs for this fiasco is difficult.) CH-53K program cost: $23 billion F-35B program cost: Almost no way to calculate what the cost of the U.S. Marine Corps requirements have added to this program, but it is safe to say that it will be $34 billion in just acquisition costs for the F-35B. $104 billion dedicated just so the U.S. Marine Corps can have their own dedicated air force. "Only" $3 billion put towards an amphibious assault vehicle. Three billion dollars with nothing to show for it. That comparison does not make either expenditure right nor justifiable. Oh, they go through the pro forma filing of taxes, but when it come down to math, unless you pay more to the federal government than you receive from the federal government, you don not really pay taxes. The federal government just takes back some of the money they give you. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It was actually a significant program by Marine standards but small in comparison to other DoD programs or it all other Gov programs. MV-22 program cost: $36 billion H-1 upgrade program cost: >$11 billion (Finding exact costs for this fiasco is difficult.) CH-53K program cost: $23 billion F-35B program cost: Almost no way to calculate what the cost of the U.S. Marine Corps requirements have added to this program, but it is safe to say that it will be $34 billion in just acquisition costs for the F-35B. $104 billion dedicated just so the U.S. Marine Corps can have their own dedicated air force. "Only" $3 billion put towards an amphibious assault vehicle. Three billion dollars with nothing to show for it. The 23 year program cost a third more than free government cell does in a year That comparison does not make either expenditure right nor justifiable. So your contention now is that military don't actually pay taxes? Oh, they go through the pro forma filing of taxes, but when it come down to math, unless you pay more to the federal government than you receive from the federal government, you don not really pay taxes. The federal government just takes back some of the money they give you. Really? You are faulting the Corps for spending the funds on the stuff they actually use for insertion rather than on more amphib tracks? Maybe you should talk to the Commandant and explain your superior wisdom to him-I'm sure he'll be all ears. Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:57:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? You are faulting the Corps for spending the funds on the stuff they actually use for insertion rather than on more amphib tracks? Maybe you should talk to the Commandant and explain your superior wisdom to him-I'm sure he'll be all ears. Nick Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was actually a significant program by Marine standards but small in comparison to other DoD programs or it all other Gov programs. MV-22 program cost: $36 billion H-1 upgrade program cost: >$11 billion (Finding exact costs for this fiasco is difficult.) CH-53K program cost: $23 billion F-35B program cost: Almost no way to calculate what the cost of the U.S. Marine Corps requirements have added to this program, but it is safe to say that it will be $34 billion in just acquisition costs for the F-35B. $104 billion dedicated just so the U.S. Marine Corps can have their own dedicated air force. "Only" $3 billion put towards an amphibious assault vehicle. Three billion dollars with nothing to show for it. The 23 year program cost a third more than free government cell does in a year That comparison does not make either expenditure right nor justifiable. So your contention now is that military don't actually pay taxes? Oh, they go through the pro forma filing of taxes, but when it come down to math, unless you pay more to the federal government than you receive from the federal government, you don not really pay taxes. The federal government just takes back some of the money they give you. Really? You are faulting the Corps for spending the funds on the stuff they actually use for insertion rather than on more amphib tracks? Maybe you should talk to the Commandant and explain your superior wisdom to him-I'm sure he'll be all ears. Nick Nick, if your point is the US government and DoD suck at program management than the only argument you would get from me is the Marine Corps sucks the least But that is completely different than initial argument that we put no effort into upgrading amphibious, over the beach capability because we put a shit load of money into it but the technology has matured |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:35:44 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? You are faulting the Corps for spending the funds on the stuff they actually use for insertion rather than on more amphib tracks? Maybe you should talk to the Commandant and explain your superior wisdom to him-I'm sure he'll be all ears. Nick Thank you for making my point about the U.S. Marine Corps being a second land army. In light of the facts, perhaps we should also say second air force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:41:43 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for making my point about the U.S. Marine Corps being a second land army. In light of the facts, perhaps we should also say second air force. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Really? You are faulting the Corps for spending the funds on the stuff they actually use for insertion rather than on more amphib tracks? Maybe you should talk to the Commandant and explain your superior wisdom to him-I'm sure he'll be all ears. Nick Thank you for making my point about the U.S. Marine Corps being a second land army. In light of the facts, perhaps we should also say second air force. What is a land army? Other than point of rhetoric; By nature are not armies land combat organizations? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:45:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is a land army? Other than point of rhetoric; By nature are not armies land combat organizations? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really? You are faulting the Corps for spending the funds on the stuff they actually use for insertion rather than on more amphib tracks? Maybe you should talk to the Commandant and explain your superior wisdom to him-I'm sure he'll be all ears. Nick Thank you for making my point about the U.S. Marine Corps being a second land army. In light of the facts, perhaps we should also say second air force. What is a land army? Other than point of rhetoric; By nature are not armies land combat organizations? More importantly, what is so deficient in the first army or the first air force that we should expend taxpayer money on a second one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:48:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Ah, yes...... The Sunburn.
I hate that fucking thing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:56:07 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More importantly, what is so deficient in the first army or the first air force that we should expend taxpayer money on a second one? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really? You are faulting the Corps for spending the funds on the stuff they actually use for insertion rather than on more amphib tracks? Maybe you should talk to the Commandant and explain your superior wisdom to him-I'm sure he'll be all ears. Nick Thank you for making my point about the U.S. Marine Corps being a second land army. In light of the facts, perhaps we should also say second air force. What is a land army? Other than point of rhetoric; By nature are not armies land combat organizations? More importantly, what is so deficient in the first army or the first air force that we should expend taxpayer money on a second one? Efficiency and ability to conduct expeditionary operations would be major deficiencies; if you think USMC cost too much you should look at the total costs for the other services to conduct combat operations |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:22:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your contention now is that military don't actually pay taxes? I will say we don't. If I pay you 100 dollars, and you give me 20 back, the only thing that happened is I paid you 80 dollars with some kubuki theater introduced unnecessarily. the idea that all officers, or even most, aren't trying to be good stewards of the taxpayers money is untrue. Unless we are talking pilots, of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:26:33 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Efficiency and ability to conduct expeditionary operations would be major deficiencies; if you think USMC cost too much you should look at the total costs for the other services to conduct combat operations It costs too much for what we get. We get more U.S. Army and more U.S. Air Force at the expense of another military branch and all the associated overhead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:46:18 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nick, if your point is the US government and DoD suck at program management than the only argument you would get from me is the Marine Corps sucks the least But that is completely different than initial argument that we put no effort into upgrading amphibious, over the beach capability because we put a shit load of money into it but the technology has matured Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It was actually a significant program by Marine standards but small in comparison to other DoD programs or it all other Gov programs. MV-22 program cost: $36 billion H-1 upgrade program cost: >$11 billion (Finding exact costs for this fiasco is difficult.) CH-53K program cost: $23 billion F-35B program cost: Almost no way to calculate what the cost of the U.S. Marine Corps requirements have added to this program, but it is safe to say that it will be $34 billion in just acquisition costs for the F-35B. $104 billion dedicated just so the U.S. Marine Corps can have their own dedicated air force. "Only" $3 billion put towards an amphibious assault vehicle. Three billion dollars with nothing to show for it. Really? You are faulting the Corps for spending the funds on the stuff they actually use for insertion rather than on more amphib tracks? Maybe you should talk to the Commandant and explain your superior wisdom to him-I'm sure he'll be all ears. Nick Nick, if your point is the US government and DoD suck at program management than the only argument you would get from me is the Marine Corps sucks the least But that is completely different than initial argument that we put no effort into upgrading amphibious, over the beach capability because we put a shit load of money into it but the technology has matured R0N, my statement was a response to shoestring's absurd points, which are really nuggets of wisdom-inhis own mind. He doesn't seem to get it that you guys very rarely directly assault the beach. Air assets are critical for how the Corps fights. This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should. He gave his measure in that other thread on airborne surveillance and told all of us it's rather pointless to try to debate him, as all he does is stick his fingers in his (their) ears and yell "nyah, nyah, nyah-I can't hear you!" My eight year old daughter is better at bringing reasoned arguments than that clown(s). Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:53:24 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
R0N, my statement was a response to shoestring's absurd points, which are really nuggets of wisdom-inhis own mind. He doesn't seem to get it that you guys very rarely directly assault the beach. Air assets are critical for how the Corps fights. This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should. He gave his measure in that other thread on airborne surveillance and told all of us it's rather pointless to try to debate him, as all he does is stick his fingers in his (their) ears and yell "nyah, nyah, nyah-I can't hear you!" My eight year old daughter is better at bringing reasoned arguments than that clown(s). Nick Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was actually a significant program by Marine standards but small in comparison to other DoD programs or it all other Gov programs. MV-22 program cost: $36 billion H-1 upgrade program cost: >$11 billion (Finding exact costs for this fiasco is difficult.) CH-53K program cost: $23 billion F-35B program cost: Almost no way to calculate what the cost of the U.S. Marine Corps requirements have added to this program, but it is safe to say that it will be $34 billion in just acquisition costs for the F-35B. $104 billion dedicated just so the U.S. Marine Corps can have their own dedicated air force. "Only" $3 billion put towards an amphibious assault vehicle. Three billion dollars with nothing to show for it. Really? You are faulting the Corps for spending the funds on the stuff they actually use for insertion rather than on more amphib tracks? Maybe you should talk to the Commandant and explain your superior wisdom to him-I'm sure he'll be all ears. Nick Nick, if your point is the US government and DoD suck at program management than the only argument you would get from me is the Marine Corps sucks the least But that is completely different than initial argument that we put no effort into upgrading amphibious, over the beach capability because we put a shit load of money into it but the technology has matured R0N, my statement was a response to shoestring's absurd points, which are really nuggets of wisdom-inhis own mind. He doesn't seem to get it that you guys very rarely directly assault the beach. Air assets are critical for how the Corps fights. This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should. He gave his measure in that other thread on airborne surveillance and told all of us it's rather pointless to try to debate him, as all he does is stick his fingers in his (their) ears and yell "nyah, nyah, nyah-I can't hear you!" My eight year old daughter is better at bringing reasoned arguments than that clown(s). Nick Nick my apologies |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:00:32 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will say we don't. If I pay you 100 dollars, and you give me 20 back, the only thing that happened is I paid you 80 dollars with some kubuki theater introduced unnecessarily. the idea that all officers, or even most, aren't trying to be good stewards of the taxpayers money is untrue. Unless we are talking pilots, of course. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So your contention now is that military don't actually pay taxes? I will say we don't. If I pay you 100 dollars, and you give me 20 back, the only thing that happened is I paid you 80 dollars with some kubuki theater introduced unnecessarily. the idea that all officers, or even most, aren't trying to be good stewards of the taxpayers money is untrue. Unless we are talking pilots, of course. I wouldn't have a problem if they gave tax free pay not cloud the issue. But as it stands by any definition taxes are collected out the unless you are of course in a war zone My experience in the Marine Operating forces is significantly different than at HQ or at other services. In the OPFOR they get very little money and are stingy about it is spent; HQ, MSG and other services not so much |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:04:43 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nick, if your point is the US government and DoD suck at program management than the only argument you would get from me is the Marine Corps sucks the least It helps when the Navy manages almost all of your MDAPs 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:07:26 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should. Mr.(?) Nick do not make my arguments for me. In other words, do not attribute words to me. If you would like to know my position on battleships, ask; otherwise, keep silent. Finally, your personal attacks are not in keeping with this site's code of conduct. Conduct yourself in line with the norms of the group. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:40:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mr.(?) Nick do not make my arguments for me. In other words, do not attribute words to me. If you would like to know my position on battleships, ask; otherwise, keep silent. Finally, your personal attacks are not in keeping with this site's code of conduct. Conduct yourself in line with the norms of the group. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should. Mr.(?) Nick do not make my arguments for me. In other words, do not attribute words to me. If you would like to know my position on battleships, ask; otherwise, keep silent. Finally, your personal attacks are not in keeping with this site's code of conduct. Conduct yourself in line with the norms of the group.  You have done nothing but insult everyone that disagrees with you, so shut up on the CoC, lest you get called on it.  Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:43:19 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nick my apologies Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Really? You are faulting the Corps for spending the funds on the stuff they actually use for insertion rather than on more amphib tracks? Maybe you should talk to the Commandant and explain your superior wisdom to him-I'm sure he'll be all ears. Nick Nick, if your point is the US government and DoD suck at program management than the only argument you would get from me is the Marine Corps sucks the least But that is completely different than initial argument that we put no effort into upgrading amphibious, over the beach capability because we put a shit load of money into it but the technology has matured R0N, my statement was a response to shoestring's absurd points, which are really nuggets of wisdom-in his own mind. He doesn't seem to get it that you guys very rarely directly assault the beach. Air assets are critical for how the Corps fights. This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should. He gave his measure in that other thread on airborne surveillance and told all of us it's rather pointless to try to debate him, as all he does is stick his fingers in his (their) ears and yell "nyah, nyah, nyah-I can't hear you!" My eight year old daughter is better at bringing reasoned arguments than that clown(s). Nick Nick my apologies Not necessary-quote trees can be a little messed up sometimes around here-carry on, sir (unless you're enlisted-I know enlisted guys don't like that! )Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 5:03:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have done nothing but insult everyone that disagrees with you, so shut up on the CoC, lest you get called on it.
Nick Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should. Mr.(?) Nick do not make my arguments for me. In other words, do not attribute words to me. If you would like to know my position on battleships, ask; otherwise, keep silent. Finally, your personal attacks are not in keeping with this site's code of conduct. Conduct yourself in line with the norms of the group.
You have done nothing but insult everyone that disagrees with you, so shut up on the CoC, lest you get called on it.
Nick I must have missed the insults? He's dense, yes, and thoroughly pedantic, but most of the insults are not very creative attempts to discredit him, I think. Given how quickly his other account was called to the pit, I'm surprised no one has made a shoeh8ing thread there yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 5:11:34 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryDoes the modern packaging of that have still have Dad and son playing Battleship while Mom and daughter are in the kitchen washing dishes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 5:22:07 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have done nothing but insult everyone that disagrees with you, so shut up on the CoC, lest you get called on it.
Nick Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should. Mr.(?) Nick do not make my arguments for me. In other words, do not attribute words to me. If you would like to know my position on battleships, ask; otherwise, keep silent. Finally, your personal attacks are not in keeping with this site's code of conduct. Conduct yourself in line with the norms of the group.
You have done nothing but insult everyone that disagrees with you, so shut up on the CoC, lest you get called on it.
Nick I have not insulted anyone. I have not called anyone names. If you believe I have violated the Code of Conduct, do what is right. Personally, I believe doing what is right is not reporting anyone. I have not used the report button even though I have been insulted many times in violation of the Code of Conduct. I believe pointing out those violations so that a person has a chance to learn from and correct their behavior. In that same vein, I have identified personal shortcomings of several posters and have given suggestions on how to overcome them in the spirit of self-improvement. For instance, reading comprehension seems to be a lost art. People on this board react to what they think I have said, instead of reading what I have actually said. They also make assumptions instead of asking questions. Just as you have done about my stance on battleships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 5:22:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Given how quickly his other account was called to the pit, I'm surprised no one has made a shoeh8ing thread there yet. What other account would that be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 5:35:11 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I must have missed the insults? He's dense, yes, and thoroughly pedantic, but most of the insults are not very creative attempts to discredit him, I think. Given how quickly his other account was called to the pit, I'm surprised no one has made a shoeh8ing thread there yet. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should. Mr.(?) Nick do not make my arguments for me. In other words, do not attribute words to me. If you would like to know my position on battleships, ask; otherwise, keep silent. Finally, your personal attacks are not in keeping with this site's code of conduct. Conduct yourself in line with the norms of the group. You have done nothing but insult everyone that disagrees with you, so shut up on the CoC, lest you get called on it. Nick I must have missed the insults? He's dense, yes, and thoroughly pedantic, but most of the insults are not very creative attempts to discredit him, I think. Given how quickly his other account was called to the pit, I'm surprised no one has made a shoeh8ing thread there yet. "If you cannot see the obvious then no amount of writing will help you to see the truth." "I am sadden by your lack of critical thinking ability." "I cannot source every news article over the last fifteen years. Perhaps you should pay more attention, pop tart." "If you have the reading comprehension and critical thinking ability to do so. I do not hold out hope." "As the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." I think you will die of thirst." "I cannot put it more plainly." "Perhaps you should use the welfare handout known as the G.I. Bill to learn reading comprehension." "Again, I implore you to use the handout known as the G.I Bill." "You are on the government dole." These are some of the more egrerious from this very thread-all through, he has been oozing disdain for the guys with tanks, insinuating several times that they are FSA, w/o coming right out and saying it. Make of it what you will. Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 5:41:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it technically feasible to have drone ships & tenders? Just something large enough to mount a CIWS that could circle larger ships/fleets? Or do you actually need crew to keep the engines running minute-to-minute? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
picket ships. the question is can we even afford those anymore? At some point you need mass. Is it technically feasible to have drone ships & tenders? Just something large enough to mount a CIWS that could circle larger ships/fleets? Or do you actually need crew to keep the engines running minute-to-minute? That is actually a great idea. Drone ships should be something well within our current technical capabilities, as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 5:56:14 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should... Why BBs instead of air assets, when we could have made BBs into air assets! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 5:56:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABv03Ru8I8E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABv03Ru8I8E but i believe these have been decommissioned on ships. (correct me if i'm wrong) ETA replaced by LAWS? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABv03Ru8I8E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABv03Ru8I8E but i believe these have been decommissioned on ships. (correct me if i'm wrong) ETA replaced by LAWS? Modern big decks have RAM, CIWS, and ESSM. That's not taking into account Sea Shield or soft kill capabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 6:02:37 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why BBs instead of air assets, when we could have made BBs into air assets! http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9469/35439943.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ...This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should... Why BBs instead of air assets, when we could have made BBs into air assets! http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9469/35439943.jpg  Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 6:03:14 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you watch the video, two objects hit that ship. Yeah, but he was blind the whole time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 6:28:34 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
These are some of the more egrerious from this very thread-all through, he has been oozing disdain for the guys with tanks, insinuating several times that they are FSA, w/o coming right out and saying it. Make of it what you will. Nick Quote HistoryQuoted: "If you cannot see the obvious then no amount of writing will help you to see the truth." "I am sadden by your lack of critical thinking ability." "I cannot source every news article over the last fifteen years. Perhaps you should pay more attention, pop tart." "If you have the reading comprehension and critical thinking ability to do so. I do not hold out hope." "As the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." I think you will die of thirst." "I cannot put it more plainly." "Perhaps you should use the welfare handout known as the G.I. Bill to learn reading comprehension." "Again, I implore you to use the handout known as the G.I Bill." "You are on the government dole." These are some of the more egrerious from this very thread-all through, he has been oozing disdain for the guys with tanks, insinuating several times that they are FSA, w/o coming right out and saying it. Make of it what you will. Nick Disdain =/= insults. He's not even close to CoC violations, unlike may of the direct insults hurled at him. Is he an ass? Sure. Is it very similar to Dave_A's trolling? Yes. But who cares? He's made an argument, right or wrong, and he posts links that he claims backs it up. Don't agree with him? Explain why he's wrong, other than insulting him. Take the high road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 6:31:03 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. Even if true the Russians do not have any ships that pose a threat and we have other means to take care of anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 7:05:13 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I must have missed the insults? He's dense, yes, and thoroughly pedantic, but most of the insults are not very creative attempts to discredit him, I think. The insult is that Shoe has a different opinion than the majority |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 7:05:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if true the Russians do not have any ships that pose a threat and we have other means to take care of anything else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. Even if true the Russians do not have any ships that pose a threat and we have other means to take care of anything else. The Russians aren't the only ones with that missile and better missiles than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 7:10:12 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Russians aren't the only ones with that missile and better missiles than that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. Even if true the Russians do not have any ships that pose a threat and we have other means to take care of anything else. The Russians aren't the only ones with that missile and better missiles than that. SO what? Let one country hit one of our military ships with one two and we will destroy them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 7:10:30 PM EDT
[#36]
Best scene in any book I have read was in Red Storm Rising when the Russians fooled the Carrier Strike Group with drones. The oh shit moment when the Tomcats went Winchester was classic. Just great writing. I think those were Sunburn missiles too? Can't remember.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 7:14:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Why haven't we developed or fielded supersonic anti-ship missiles? I know there was one, the LRASM-B, that was supersonic, but I read where it was cancelled..........
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Russians aren't the only ones with that missile and better missiles than that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. Even if true the Russians do not have any ships that pose a threat and we have other means to take care of anything else. The Russians aren't the only ones with that missile and better missiles than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 7:14:51 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best scene in any book I have read was in Red Storm Rising when the Russians fooled the Carrier Strike Group with drones. The oh shit moment when the Tomcats went Winchester was classic. Just great writing. I think those were Sunburn missiles too? Can't remember. Nah - AS-4, a much easier missiles to kill in theory because it stayed high, but the Kitchen has a 1000 Kg warhead, was nuclear capable, and did mach 4.6. Battlespace compression - yup. At least it stayed above the radar horizon so Aegis could get some licks in before it died. Edited to change Kt to Kg
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 7:18:02 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why haven't we developed or fielded supersonic anti-ship missiles? I know there was one, the LRASM-B, that was supersonic, but I read where it was cancelled.......... Because until the last 10-12 years the threat hasn't really merited it. Even when other navies fielded better missiles, the USN still had tremendous capability via the CVW and SSNs. The PRC, and that's really the only near peer threat threat although advance ASCM threats have proliferated and given the situation in Syria, even ISIS may have access to Yakhont/Brahmos, has made huge strides in air defense and ASW during the lost decade where the USN was focused almost exclusively on supporting land forces in permissive environments and doing BMD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 7:22:34 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the pentagon, planner often actually did refer to the guard as the 2nd Land Army because although related to the AC; they are not 100 percent interchangeable In what ways are they not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 8:28:16 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if true the Russians do not have any ships that pose a threat and we have other means to take care of anything else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. Even if true the Russians do not have any ships that pose a threat and we have other means to take care of anything else. 
I certainly won't argue that they have systems on par with Western stuff, but in terms of 'boom', even a simple Tarantul would make a defanged Burke nervous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 8:35:20 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because until the last 10-12 years the threat hasn't really merited it. Even when other navies fielded better missiles, the USN still had tremendous capability via the CVW and SSNs. The PRC, and that's really the only near peer threat threat although advance ASCM threats have proliferated and given the situation in Syria, even ISIS may have access to Yakhont/Brahmos, has made huge strides in air defense and ASW during the lost decade where the USN was focused almost exclusively on supporting land forces in permissive environments and doing BMD. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why haven't we developed or fielded supersonic anti-ship missiles? I know there was one, the LRASM-B, that was supersonic, but I read where it was cancelled.......... Because until the last 10-12 years the threat hasn't really merited it. Even when other navies fielded better missiles, the USN still had tremendous capability via the CVW and SSNs. The PRC, and that's really the only near peer threat threat although advance ASCM threats have proliferated and given the situation in Syria, even ISIS may have access to Yakhont/Brahmos, has made huge strides in air defense and ASW during the lost decade where the USN was focused almost exclusively on supporting land forces in permissive environments and doing BMD. The USN is really the one service we cannot afford to get complacent or under funded. But thankfully, it seems like the tide is turning in that manner. Plus the new anti missile laser systems could really make it much much harder to attack American vessels with missiles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 8:38:38 PM EDT
[#43]
Maybe someday in the near future we will rectify that............I'd love to see some hypersonic weapons with long ranges come into service, when the technology gets there
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because until the last 10-12 years the threat hasn't really merited it. Even when other navies fielded better missiles, the USN still had tremendous capability via the CVW and SSNs. The PRC, and that's really the only near peer threat threat although advance ASCM threats have proliferated and given the situation in Syria, even ISIS may have access to Yakhont/Brahmos, has made huge strides in air defense and ASW during the lost decade where the USN was focused almost exclusively on supporting land forces in permissive environments and doing BMD. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why haven't we developed or fielded supersonic anti-ship missiles? I know there was one, the LRASM-B, that was supersonic, but I read where it was cancelled.......... Because until the last 10-12 years the threat hasn't really merited it. Even when other navies fielded better missiles, the USN still had tremendous capability via the CVW and SSNs. The PRC, and that's really the only near peer threat threat although advance ASCM threats have proliferated and given the situation in Syria, even ISIS may have access to Yakhont/Brahmos, has made huge strides in air defense and ASW during the lost decade where the USN was focused almost exclusively on supporting land forces in permissive environments and doing BMD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:01:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Disdain =/= insults. He's not even close to CoC violations, unlike may of the direct insults hurled at him. Is he an ass? Sure. Is it very similar to Dave_A's trolling? Yes. But who cares? He's made an argument, right or wrong, and he posts links that he claims backs it up. Don't agree with him? Explain why he's wrong, other than insulting him. Take the high road. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "If you cannot see the obvious then no amount of writing will help you to see the truth." "I am sadden by your lack of critical thinking ability." "I cannot source every news article over the last fifteen years. Perhaps you should pay more attention, pop tart." "If you have the reading comprehension and critical thinking ability to do so. I do not hold out hope." "As the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." I think you will die of thirst." "I cannot put it more plainly." "Perhaps you should use the welfare handout known as the G.I. Bill to learn reading comprehension." "Again, I implore you to use the handout known as the G.I Bill." "You are on the government dole." These are some of the more egrerious from this very thread-all through, he has been oozing disdain for the guys with tanks, insinuating several times that they are FSA, w/o coming right out and saying it. Make of it what you will. Nick Disdain =/= insults. He's not even close to CoC violations, unlike may of the direct insults hurled at him. Is he an ass? Sure. Is it very similar to Dave_A's trolling? Yes. But who cares? He's made an argument, right or wrong, and he posts links that he claims backs it up. Don't agree with him? Explain why he's wrong, other than insulting him. Take the high road. I will be honest and say I don't have the counterarguments for him. That said, I will take the word of the guys that actually know what they are talking about (R0N, Sylvan, H46, and lots of others). BTW, where is dport lately? Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:45:18 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. Pity Russia loses every time in every sim. Put the other guy on, he was more entertaining. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:47:16 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In what ways are they not? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In the pentagon, planner often actually did refer to the guard as the 2nd Land Army because although related to the AC; they are not 100 percent interchangeable In what ways are they not? Rapidity of deployability, percentage METs met (DRRS helps hide this), mission sets combatant commanders will assign them to, ability of staffs above BN to operate etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:52:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mr.(?) Nick do not make my arguments for me. In other words, do not attribute words to me. If you would like to know my position on battleships, ask; otherwise, keep silent. Finally, your personal attacks are not in keeping with this site's code of conduct. Conduct yourself in line with the norms of the group. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should. Mr.(?) Nick do not make my arguments for me. In other words, do not attribute words to me. If you would like to know my position on battleships, ask; otherwise, keep silent. Finally, your personal attacks are not in keeping with this site's code of conduct. Conduct yourself in line with the norms of the group. Please be of posting yours link of code of conduct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:54:29 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have not insulted anyone. I have not called anyone names. If you believe I have violated the Code of Conduct, do what is right. Personally, I believe doing what is right is not reporting anyone. I have not used the report button even though I have been insulted many times in violation of the Code of Conduct. I believe pointing out those violations so that a person has a chance to learn from and correct their behavior. In that same vein, I have identified personal shortcomings of several posters and have given suggestions on how to overcome them in the spirit of self-improvement. For instance, reading comprehension seems to be a lost art. People on this board react to what they think I have said, instead of reading what I have actually said. They also make assumptions instead of asking questions. Just as you have done about my stance on battleships. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This twit would be arguing for the Navy to spend huge sums on BB's instead of airborne assets, because apparently he thinks they should. Mr.(?) Nick do not make my arguments for me. In other words, do not attribute words to me. If you would like to know my position on battleships, ask; otherwise, keep silent. Finally, your personal attacks are not in keeping with this site's code of conduct. Conduct yourself in line with the norms of the group.
You have done nothing but insult everyone that disagrees with you, so shut up on the CoC, lest you get called on it.
Nick I have not insulted anyone. I have not called anyone names. If you believe I have violated the Code of Conduct, do what is right. Personally, I believe doing what is right is not reporting anyone. I have not used the report button even though I have been insulted many times in violation of the Code of Conduct. I believe pointing out those violations so that a person has a chance to learn from and correct their behavior. In that same vein, I have identified personal shortcomings of several posters and have given suggestions on how to overcome them in the spirit of self-improvement. For instance, reading comprehension seems to be a lost art. People on this board react to what they think I have said, instead of reading what I have actually said. They also make assumptions instead of asking questions. Just as you have done about my stance on battleships. International code of conduct includes not shooting down passenger airliners, too, but that wasn't of stopping the komrads for mother Russki, did it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:21:04 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
International code of conduct includes not shooting down passenger airliners, too, but that wasn't of stopping the komrads for mother Russki, did it. Perhaps not the best analogy in a thread that is discussing the United States Navy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:22:23 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps not the best analogy in a thread that is discussing the United States Navy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
International code of conduct includes not shooting down passenger airliners, too, but that wasn't of stopping the komrads for mother Russki, did it. Perhaps not the best analogy in a thread that is discussing the United States Navy. Perhaps not equivalent flight profiles either. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
