User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 6:35:28 AM EDT
[#1]
With those crazy missles and submarines it has. Missiles? What missiles would those be? Harpoon, which dates back to the 1970s? Or some new secret missile? Submarines are few in number. They are also very limited. They cannot deploy aircraft for broad area surveillance. This makes their utility limited. A strong navy, one Mahan would have advocated, would not be depended on small numbers of assets with limited utility to perform the fundamental navy mission of control of the seas. If that's true, then why do we Marines call it the suck? What an enlisted Marines calls it has no bearing on what the politician generals and admirals are doing. Umm... no. Afghanistan was a punitive expedition, and Iraq was toppling a dictator followed by a bunch of countries getting involved in restructuring the politics and restoring infrastructure. Afghanistan may have started out as a “punitive expedition.” However, the length of stay in that nation and the expenditures on infrastructure means it has long since become an exercise in the building of a nation. LOL wat? Make more sense. I cannot put it more plainly. Perhaps you should use the welfare handout known as the G.I. Bill to learn reading comprehension. OH NO the Marines are getting by on old worn out equipment! Your shitting us! No. The Marines are getting by with old worn out equipment that is fundamental to their amphibious mission. The United States Marine Corp’s air force is nicely equipped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 6:36:54 AM EDT
[#2]
Except for that whole, you know, ambhib thing we do... floats didn't stop just because of the GWOT. Perhaps you should read more. The Commodant of the Marine Corps worries about the United States Marine Corps' ability to do its amphibious mission. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20111204/NEWS/112040305/Postwar-Corps-looks-return-its-roots You ever watch TV? Distinguishing Marines from Army isn't too hard, we have the best PR in the world. Indeed. Which is why the boondoggle of a tax expenditure known as the United States Marine Corps is allowed to continue. The fact of the matter is the largest amphibious operations were performed by the United States Army, so it is not like the United States Marine Corps brings any truly unique capability. So in one breath you complain about Marine using old tracks, in another you bitch about them having new shit. Got ya. Again, I implore you to use the handout known as the G.I Bill. It will help you understand the complete argument. My thesis was this, the United States Marine Corps has bought equipment that aids in in performing as a second land army, while neglecting the equipment that is fundamental to its core amphibious missions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 6:40:27 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. The Marines are getting by with old worn out equipment that is fundamental to their amphibious mission. The United States Marine Corp’s air force is nicely equipped. We sunk billions into the development of the AAV before SECDEF ordered it cancelled since than we transferred all our efforts to the ACV all the same time we put money huge sums of money into the AAV7A1 RAM/RS family of vehicles modifications and upgrades in order to sustain assault amphibian capabilities in the near-term to mid-term |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 6:43:16 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps you should read more. The Commodant of the Marine Corps worries about the United States Marine Corps' ability to do its amphibious mission. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20111204/NEWS/112040305/Postwar-Corps-looks-return-its-roots Indeed. Which is why the boondoggle of a tax expenditure known as the United States Marine Corps is allowed to continue. The fact of the matter is the largest amphibious operations were performed by the United States Army, so it is not like the United States Marine Corps brings any truly unique capability. Again, I implore you to use the handout known as the G.I Bill. It will help you understand the complete argument. My thesis was this, the United States Marine Corps has bought equipment that aids in in performing as a second land army, while neglecting the equipment that is fundamental to its core amphibious missions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except for that whole, you know, ambhib thing we do... floats didn't stop just because of the GWOT. Perhaps you should read more. The Commodant of the Marine Corps worries about the United States Marine Corps' ability to do its amphibious mission. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20111204/NEWS/112040305/Postwar-Corps-looks-return-its-roots You ever watch TV? Distinguishing Marines from Army isn't too hard, we have the best PR in the world. Indeed. Which is why the boondoggle of a tax expenditure known as the United States Marine Corps is allowed to continue. The fact of the matter is the largest amphibious operations were performed by the United States Army, so it is not like the United States Marine Corps brings any truly unique capability. So in one breath you complain about Marine using old tracks, in another you bitch about them having new shit. Got ya. Again, I implore you to use the handout known as the G.I Bill. It will help you understand the complete argument. My thesis was this, the United States Marine Corps has bought equipment that aids in in performing as a second land army, while neglecting the equipment that is fundamental to its core amphibious missions. You are stuck in the past if you believe amphibious missions are limited to over the beach via tracked vehicles, the vertical lift aircraft you deride are essential to STOM and OMFTS Most of CMCs concern is the lack of amphibious lift; that is caused by lack of L platforms to support combatant commander OPLAN requirements. With modern defensive system the vertical echelon is going to be main effort while the over the beach echelon will be the supporting effort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 6:47:57 AM EDT
[#5]
Yeah.
The OPLANs. Sacred they are. As opposed to the actual war fight. That shit is boring. And so last year. We will never fight islamic terrorists in a desert environment ever again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 6:56:30 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why does that look like it was filmed in a bathtub? That's what I was thinking. That someone shot a miniature |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 7:33:07 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...If you expect the U.S. Navy submarine force to engage adversary navies at range with Harpoons then you expect them to engage with the same out-dated, outmoded missile, while at the same time giving away their position and surrendering their greatest advantage, stealth. Otherwise, to be lethal, they must close range and engage with a torpedo. That means they cannot effectively cover as much area as a surface ship, and are therefore less likely to bring an adversary’s navy under fire, even with the parity brought by the paucity of anti-ship cruise missile equipped surface ships. 
Pulling off the Harpoon box and CIWS and saying poof! Doctrine change! doesn't really make for clever naval policy, it would seem to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 7:42:30 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We sunk billions into the development of the AAV before SECDEF ordered it cancelled since than we transferred all our efforts to the ACV all the same time we put money huge sums of money into the AAV7A1 RAM/RS family of vehicles modifications and upgrades in order to sustain assault amphibian capabilities in the near-term to mid-term Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. The Marines are getting by with old worn out equipment that is fundamental to their amphibious mission. The United States Marine Corp’s air force is nicely equipped. We sunk billions into the development of the AAV before SECDEF ordered it cancelled since than we transferred all our efforts to the ACV all the same time we put money huge sums of money into the AAV7A1 RAM/RS family of vehicles modifications and upgrades in order to sustain assault amphibian capabilities in the near-term to mid-term That is not a ringing endorsement. One of the reasons billions were sunk into the program was restructuring an amphibious assault vehicle to have mine resistant properties. In other words, the U.S. Marine Corps wanted their amphibious assault vehicle to be suitable for playing second land army. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 7:44:48 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are stuck in the past if you believe amphibious missions are limited to over the beach via tracked vehicles, the vertical lift aircraft you deride are essential to STOM and OMFTS Most of CMCs concern is the lack of amphibious lift; that is caused by lack of L platforms to support combatant commander OPLAN requirements. With modern defensive system the vertical echelon is going to be main effort while the over the beach echelon will be the supporting effort. You forgot to mention if the U.S. Navy doesn't have a lot of amphibious assault ships that it is hard to justify the size of the U.S. Marine Corps. If it is impossible to transport two and a half Marine Expeditionary Brigades then why have them in the first place? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 8:09:25 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The most important point is not the explosions. It is how far the missiles traveled through the ship. Exactly, fire ball or not....those missiles fucked that ship up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 8:26:32 AM EDT
[#11]
Is the LRASM supersonic?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because we have aircraft and submarines that are more than capable of handling any current surface threat. Now that it looks like China will build a substantial surface fleet, we are developing LRASM. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why has every other major country (Including Norway...) put effort into developing highly advanced anti-ship missiles and we're still stuck with the Harpoon? And why do our newest ships not even carry anti-ship missiles? Because we have aircraft and submarines that are more than capable of handling any current surface threat. Now that it looks like China will build a substantial surface fleet, we are developing LRASM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 8:26:38 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: [span style='font-weight: bold;']
That is not a ringing endorsement. One of the reasons billions were sunk into the program was restructuring an amphibious assault vehicle to have mine resistant properties. In other words, the U.S. Marine Corps wanted their amphibious assault vehicle to be suitable for playing second land army. Quote HistoryQuoted: [span style='font-weight: bold;']
That is not a ringing endorsement. One of the reasons billions were sunk into the program was restructuring an amphibious assault vehicle to have mine resistant properties. In other words, the U.S. Marine Corps wanted their amphibious assault vehicle to be suitable for playing second land army. Actual no, it is a physics and time/distance problem. To get to shore in the time desire from the distance the Navy believe was relatively safe for its L Platforms you needed a speed that is really at the very edge of what current technology can deliver. However after the 2006 Lebanon incursion the Navy determined that distance needed to double, the task became even more difficult because to sustain the power requirements meant fuel expenditures would be greater than could be carried by the AAAV. Quoted: [span style='font-weight: bold;']
You forgot to mention if the U.S. Navy doesn't have a lot of amphibious assault ships that it is hard to justify the size of the U.S. Marine Corps. If it is impossible to transport two and a half Marine Expeditionary Brigades then why have them in the first place? Actual incorrect again; the Navy has not been able to conduct the 2.5 MEB mission in several years and the 184K force is based on combination of the National Security Strategy, Geographic Combatant Commanders steady state force requirements and dwell to deploy time (you also have to throw in the T2P2 factor that all services have approx. 1/5-1/4 of the forces as either in training, transition, prisoners or patients at any one time) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 8:38:10 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We sunk billions into the development of the AAV before SECDEF ordered it cancelled Quote HistoryQuoted:
We sunk billions into the development of the AAV before SECDEF ordered it cancelled You almost sound like Sylvan, only with SECDEF as the evil villan instead of the USAF. In a speech to Surface Navy Association on 13 January 2011, Commandant of the Marine Corps General James F. Amos stated that "Despite the best efforts of all involved, the EFV program has become too onerous. Thus, I recommended to the Secretary of Defense to cancel it. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/aaav.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 8:42:40 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You almost sound like Sylvan, only with SECDEF as the evil villan instead of the USAF. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/aaav.htm Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We sunk billions into the development of the AAV before SECDEF ordered it cancelled You almost sound like Sylvan, only with SECDEF as the evil villan instead of the USAF. In a speech to Surface Navy Association on 13 January 2011, Commandant of the Marine Corps General James F. Amos stated that "Despite the best efforts of all involved, the EFV program has become too onerous. Thus, I recommended to the Secretary of Defense to cancel it. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/aaav.htm If only we had more blimps! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 8:44:25 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If only we had more blimps! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We sunk billions into the development of the AAV before SECDEF ordered it cancelled You almost sound like Sylvan, only with SECDEF as the evil villan instead of the USAF. In a speech to Surface Navy Association on 13 January 2011, Commandant of the Marine Corps General James F. Amos stated that "Despite the best efforts of all involved, the EFV program has become too onerous. Thus, I recommended to the Secretary of Defense to cancel it. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/aaav.htm If only we had more blimps! Well, you do have one protecting DC. ETA - one system, two blimps I believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 8:52:15 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actual no, it is a physics and time/distance problem. To get to shore in the time desire from the distance the Navy believe was relatively safe for its L Platforms you needed a speed that is really at the very edge of what current technology can deliver. However after the 2006 Lebanon incursion the Navy determined that distance needed to double, the task became even more difficult because to sustain the power requirements meant fuel expenditures would be greater than could be carried by the AAAV. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actual no, it is a physics and time/distance problem. To get to shore in the time desire from the distance the Navy believe was relatively safe for its L Platforms you needed a speed that is really at the very edge of what current technology can deliver. However after the 2006 Lebanon incursion the Navy determined that distance needed to double, the task became even more difficult because to sustain the power requirements meant fuel expenditures would be greater than could be carried by the AAAV. That would be convincing, if it were said in a vacuum of facts. The fact of the matter is after all those billions wasted on EFV, the U.S. Marine Corps dropped the speed requiement. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/amos-says-marines-to-drop-high-speed-acv-phased-approach-likely/ The real reason is hidden in the Congressional Research Service's reports: "As previously noted, there is a great deal of concern that the flat-bottomed EFV would be overly vulnerable to IEDs detonated under the vehicle." Actual incorrect again; the Navy has not been able to conduct the 2.5 MEB mission in several years and the 184K force is based on combination of the National Security Strategy, Geographic Combatant Commanders steady state force requirements and dwell to deploy time (you also have to throw in the T2P2 factor that all services have approx. 1/5-1/4 of the forces as either in training, transition, prisoners or patients at any one time) In other words, if the U.S. Navy were to be able to lift two and a half MEBs, the U.S. Marine Corps could justify a larger force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 8:53:47 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, you do have one protecting DC. ETA - one system, two blimps I believe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We sunk billions into the development of the AAV before SECDEF ordered it cancelled You almost sound like Sylvan, only with SECDEF as the evil villan instead of the USAF. In a speech to Surface Navy Association on 13 January 2011, Commandant of the Marine Corps General James F. Amos stated that "Despite the best efforts of all involved, the EFV program has become too onerous. Thus, I recommended to the Secretary of Defense to cancel it. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/aaav.htm If only we had more blimps! Well, you do have one protecting DC. ETA - one system, two blimps I believe. Thats mission is a big deal for the guard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:06:17 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You almost sound like Sylvan, only with SECDEF as the evil villan instead of the USAF. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/aaav.htm Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We sunk billions into the development of the AAV before SECDEF ordered it cancelled You almost sound like Sylvan, only with SECDEF as the evil villan instead of the USAF. In a speech to Surface Navy Association on 13 January 2011, Commandant of the Marine Corps General James F. Amos stated that "Despite the best efforts of all involved, the EFV program has become too onerous. Thus, I recommended to the Secretary of Defense to cancel it. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/aaav.htm That speech was in respond to Sec Gates announcement in which the Sec said "This program is of great interest to the Marine community so I would like to explain the reasons... Meeting [its conflicting requirements] demands has... led to significant technology problems, development delays, and cost increases... already consumed more than $3 billion to develop and will cost another $12 billion to build - all for a fleet with the capacity to put 4,000 troops ashore. If fully executed, the EFV - which costs far more to operate and maintain than its predecessor - would essentially swallow the entire Marine vehicle budget and most of its total procurement budget for the foreseeable future... recent analysis by the Navy and Marine Corps suggests that the most plausible scenarios requiring power projection from the sea could be handled through a mix of existing air and sea systems employed in new ways along with new vehicles... the mounting cost of acquiring this specialized capability must be judged against other priorities and needs.
Let me be clear. This decision does not call into question the Marine's amphibious assault mission. We will budget the funds necessary to develop a more affordable and sustainable amphibious tractor to provide the Marines a ship-to-shore capability into the future. The budget will also propose funds to upgrade the existing amphibious vehicle fleet with new engines, electronics, and armaments to ensure that the Marines will be able to conduct ship-to-shore missions until the next generation of systems is brought on line." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:08:51 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That would be convincing, if it were said in a vacuum of facts. The fact of the matter is after all those billions wasted on EFV, the U.S. Marine Corps dropped the speed requiement. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/amos-says-marines-to-drop-high-speed-acv-phased-approach-likely/ The real reason is hidden in the Congressional Research Service's reports: "As previously noted, there is a great deal of concern that the flat-bottomed EFV would be overly vulnerable to IEDs detonated under the vehicle." In other words, if the U.S. Navy were to be able to lift two and a half MEBs, the U.S. Marine Corps could justify a larger force. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Actual no, it is a physics and time/distance problem. To get to shore in the time desire from the distance the Navy believe was relatively safe for its L Platforms you needed a speed that is really at the very edge of what current technology can deliver. However after the 2006 Lebanon incursion the Navy determined that distance needed to double, the task became even more difficult because to sustain the power requirements meant fuel expenditures would be greater than could be carried by the AAAV. That would be convincing, if it were said in a vacuum of facts. The fact of the matter is after all those billions wasted on EFV, the U.S. Marine Corps dropped the speed requiement. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/amos-says-marines-to-drop-high-speed-acv-phased-approach-likely/ The real reason is hidden in the Congressional Research Service's reports: "As previously noted, there is a great deal of concern that the flat-bottomed EFV would be overly vulnerable to IEDs detonated under the vehicle." Actual incorrect again; the Navy has not been able to conduct the 2.5 MEB mission in several years and the 184K force is based on combination of the National Security Strategy, Geographic Combatant Commanders steady state force requirements and dwell to deploy time (you also have to throw in the T2P2 factor that all services have approx. 1/5-1/4 of the forces as either in training, transition, prisoners or patients at any one time) In other words, if the U.S. Navy were to be able to lift two and a half MEBs, the U.S. Marine Corps could justify a larger force. No, the Marine Corps realizes that 38 L platforms will never fit in the ship build plan with the soaring cost of the next gen SSBN and CV construction |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:10:27 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That speech was in respond to Sec Gates announcement in which the Sec said Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We sunk billions into the development of the AAV before SECDEF ordered it cancelled You almost sound like Sylvan, only with SECDEF as the evil villan instead of the USAF. In a speech to Surface Navy Association on 13 January 2011, Commandant of the Marine Corps General James F. Amos stated that "Despite the best efforts of all involved, the EFV program has become too onerous. Thus, I recommended to the Secretary of Defense to cancel it. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/aaav.htm That speech was in respond to Sec Gates announcement in which the Sec said "This program is of great interest to the Marine community so I would like to explain the reasons... Meeting [its conflicting requirements] demands has... led to significant technology problems, development delays, and cost increases... already consumed more than $3 billion to develop and will cost another $12 billion to build - all for a fleet with the capacity to put 4,000 troops ashore. If fully executed, the EFV - which costs far more to operate and maintain than its predecessor - would essentially swallow the entire Marine vehicle budget and most of its total procurement budget for the foreseeable future... recent analysis by the Navy and Marine Corps suggests that the most plausible scenarios requiring power projection from the sea could be handled through a mix of existing air and sea systems employed in new ways along with new vehicles... the mounting cost of acquiring this specialized capability must be judged against other priorities and needs.
Let me be clear. This decision does not call into question the Marine's amphibious assault mission. We will budget the funds necessary to develop a more affordable and sustainable amphibious tractor to provide the Marines a ship-to-shore capability into the future. The budget will also propose funds to upgrade the existing amphibious vehicle fleet with new engines, electronics, and armaments to ensure that the Marines will be able to conduct ship-to-shore missions until the next generation of systems is brought on line." Instead of relaxing the requirements, which is what happened on the ACV program, they cancelled EFV and started new programs. Very good. That will surely get generals jobs after they retire from the U.S. Marine Corps. Meanwhile, the U.S. Marine Corps' core mission is dependent upon forty year old vehicles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:12:10 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, the Marine Corps realizes that 38 L platforms will never fit in the ship build plan with the soaring cost of the next gen SSBN and CV construction There is no "CV" construction. All carriers are now nuclear-powered. Your statement also proves my point about the U.S. Marine Corps acting as a second land army. It can not perform amphibious assault in any meaningful quantity, so it is now time to carve a niche from the U.S. Army's job to justify its continued existance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:16:58 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no "CV" construction. All carriers are now nuclear-powered. Your statement also proves my point about the U.S. Marine Corps acting as a second land army. It can not perform amphibious assault in any meaningful quantity, so it is now time to carve a niche from the U.S. Army's job to justify its continued existance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, the Marine Corps realizes that 38 L platforms will never fit in the ship build plan with the soaring cost of the next gen SSBN and CV construction There is no "CV" construction. All carriers are now nuclear-powered. Your statement also proves my point about the U.S. Marine Corps acting as a second land army. It can not perform amphibious assault in any meaningful quantity, so it is now time to carve a niche from the U.S. Army's job to justify its continued existance. It is actually the third land army after the USANG; however that being said amphibious does not mean solely over the beach via tracks. Only ignorant people think that; we have conducted on average one amphibious operation ever 6 weeks since 1990 only a few of them track vehicle over the beach based The relaxing of the requirements is based on fiscal reality; it will cost 11M per unit to build the current capability we have AAV |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:19:59 AM EDT
[#23]
I love doing this to you RON
ANG Is Air Guard ARNG is Army Guard And we aren't the second land army, we are still part of the 1st. And I'm shocked you didn't know our CVs are all nuclear. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:22:26 AM EDT
[#24]
Fake ass shit. The Russians packed it full of explosives to give it scary dramatic effect.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:23:37 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love doing this to you RON ANG Is Air Guard ARNG is Army Guard And we aren't the second land army, we are still part of the 1st. And I'm shocked you didn't know our CVs are all nuclear. My mistake, I am typing on my iphone 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:25:26 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's obvious that a lot of people don't understand the amount of raw kinetic energy those missiles are carrying. If you want to think that's a bunch of secondaries, go right ahead. Either way, the outcome without secondaries would still be the same: catastrophic damage and a sunken ship. It's fucking shit man. A ship doesn't explode like that unless you hit the well protected magazines, or the mock ship is filled with explosives for propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:27:28 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's fucking shit man. A ship doesn't explode like that unless you hit the well protected magazines, or the mock ship is filled with explosives for propaganda. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's obvious that a lot of people don't understand the amount of raw kinetic energy those missiles are carrying. If you want to think that's a bunch of secondaries, go right ahead. Either way, the outcome without secondaries would still be the same: catastrophic damage and a sunken ship. It's fucking shit man. A ship doesn't explode like that unless you hit the well protected magazines, or the mock ship is filled with explosives for propaganda. Maybe the intended targets of those ships would have some explosives and flammables and such on board? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:28:15 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The relaxing of the requirements is based on fiscal reality; it will cost 11M per unit to build the current capability we have AAV It would have been better for the American taxpayers if the U.S. Marine Corps had realized fiscal reality during the EFV programme. The U.S. Marine Corps would have a new amphibious assault vehicle to support its core mission, and the taxpayers would be billions richer, or at least in less debt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:28:46 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's fucking shit man. A ship doesn't explode like that unless you hit the well protected magazines, or the mock ship is filled with explosives for propaganda. How many ships have you seen hit with an anti-ship crusie missile? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:30:15 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe the intended targets of those ships would have some explosives and flammables and such on board? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's obvious that a lot of people don't understand the amount of raw kinetic energy those missiles are carrying. If you want to think that's a bunch of secondaries, go right ahead. Either way, the outcome without secondaries would still be the same: catastrophic damage and a sunken ship. It's fucking shit man. A ship doesn't explode like that unless you hit the well protected magazines, or the mock ship is filled with explosives for propaganda. Maybe the intended targets of those ships would have some explosives and flammables and such on board? It's a fake bs video intended to be used as propaganda. It's like watching a dumbass movie I saw a few years ago, where a guy shoots a 40mm at a house and the entire house explodes in a giant fireball.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:30:17 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love doing this to you RON ANG Is Air Guard ARNG is Army Guard And we aren't the second land army, we are still part of the 1st. You'd think he'd have that Strait by now 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:30:58 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would have been better for the American taxpayers if the U.S. Marine Corps had realized fiscal reality during the EFV programme. The U.S. Marine Corps would have a new amphibious assault vehicle to support its core mission, and the taxpayers would be billions richer, or at least in less debt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The relaxing of the requirements is based on fiscal reality; it will cost 11M per unit to build the current capability we have AAV It would have been better for the American taxpayers if the U.S. Marine Corps had realized fiscal reality during the EFV programme. The U.S. Marine Corps would have a new amphibious assault vehicle to support its core mission, and the taxpayers would be billions richer, or at least in less debt. 3 billion dollars over multiple FYDPs is budget dust in DC |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:31:44 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many ships have you seen hit with an anti-ship crusie missile? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's fucking shit man. A ship doesn't explode like that unless you hit the well protected magazines, or the mock ship is filled with explosives for propaganda. How many ships have you seen hit with an anti-ship crusie missile? Please. British ships took hits from anti-ship missiles in the Falklands and didn't explode like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:32:01 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Makes it look scary to 'Muricans who will fear greatly having their sons and daughters face the bear. And it camoflages the missile's true characteristics and capabilities to an extent. In summary,a propaganda and deception twofer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I suspect based on the several different explosions that this ship was rigged. The missile did hit but I don't believe something moving that fast can carry that much explosive along with it. Maybe they were simulating light offs of ordnance aboard the ship, but I suspect shenanigans since this was released publicly. Hint, ordnance explosives do not create fireballs. Shenanigans OK, so assuming that this is clearly staged with extra explosives.... any ordnance guy is going to look at this and immediately know it is rigged. So what is the point? Makes them look kind of stupid. It would be like me shooting a car in the trunk, where I had a tank of propane, and a lit road flare, then claiming my 5.56 round is explosive. Makes it look scary to 'Muricans who will fear greatly having their sons and daughters face the bear. And it camoflages the missile's true characteristics and capabilities to an extent. In summary,a propaganda and deception twofer. This. It wasn't for government and .mil consumption, it was a show for the anti-war civilians who vote for spineless politicians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:33:04 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I suspect based on the several different explosions that this ship was rigged. The missile did hit but I don't believe something moving that fast can carry that much explosive along with it. Maybe they were simulating light offs of ordnance aboard the ship, but I suspect shenanigans since this was released publicly. +1 Meant to be scurry propaganda. "uh errrr! dun mess wit da Ruuuskies!"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:37:59 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please. British ships took hits from anti-ship missiles in the Falklands and didn't explode like that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's fucking shit man. A ship doesn't explode like that unless you hit the well protected magazines, or the mock ship is filled with explosives for propaganda. How many ships have you seen hit with an anti-ship crusie missile? Please. British ships took hits from anti-ship missiles in the Falklands and didn't explode like that. How many did you witness? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:38:55 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
3 billion dollars over multiple FYDPs is budget dust in DC Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The relaxing of the requirements is based on fiscal reality; it will cost 11M per unit to build the current capability we have AAV It would have been better for the American taxpayers if the U.S. Marine Corps had realized fiscal reality during the EFV programme. The U.S. Marine Corps would have a new amphibious assault vehicle to support its core mission, and the taxpayers would be billions richer, or at least in less debt. 3 billion dollars over multiple FYDPs is budget dust in DC It is that sort of attitude that has led to our national debt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:39:47 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many did you witness? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's fucking shit man. A ship doesn't explode like that unless you hit the well protected magazines, or the mock ship is filled with explosives for propaganda. How many ships have you seen hit with an anti-ship crusie missile? Please. British ships took hits from anti-ship missiles in the Falklands and didn't explode like that. How many did you witness? Being a witness = being an expert on a subject?  There's plenty of material out there and pictures to see the damage of what a anti-ship missiles does in a real world situation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:40:52 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is Primorsky back as a `14'r? All 4 of him. If he posts enough in this thread, you'll easily catch the shift changes. Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:46:45 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:; they are not 100 percent interchangeable fascist lies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:50:53 AM EDT
[#41]
This is a pretty good video showing the Exocet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUZu8bvxJs4 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being a witness = being an expert on a subject?
There's plenty of material out there and pictures to see the damage of what a anti-ship missiles does in a real world situation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's fucking shit man. A ship doesn't explode like that unless you hit the well protected magazines, or the mock ship is filled with explosives for propaganda. How many ships have you seen hit with an anti-ship crusie missile? Please. British ships took hits from anti-ship missiles in the Falklands and didn't explode like that. How many did you witness? Being a witness = being an expert on a subject?
There's plenty of material out there and pictures to see the damage of what a anti-ship missiles does in a real world situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:50:56 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being a witness = being an expert on a subject?
There's plenty of material out there and pictures to see the damage of what a anti-ship missiles does in a real world situation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's fucking shit man. A ship doesn't explode like that unless you hit the well protected magazines, or the mock ship is filled with explosives for propaganda. How many ships have you seen hit with an anti-ship crusie missile? Please. British ships took hits from anti-ship missiles in the Falklands and didn't explode like that. How many did you witness? Being a witness = being an expert on a subject?
There's plenty of material out there and pictures to see the damage of what a anti-ship missiles does in a real world situation. Which pictures have you seen? What type missile was used? What type of warhead did that missile have? How big was the warhead? Without a thorough understanding of all the variables involved, a layman's eye is not a reliable source of information. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:52:54 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryHow big is an Exocet missile compared to an SS-N-22? How big is the warhead of each? How fast does an Exocet travel compared to and SS-N-22? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 9:53:54 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please. British ships took hits from anti-ship missiles in the Falklands and didn't explode like that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's fucking shit man. A ship doesn't explode like that unless you hit the well protected magazines, or the mock ship is filled with explosives for propaganda. How many ships have you seen hit with an anti-ship crusie missile? Please. British ships took hits from anti-ship missiles in the Falklands and didn't explode like that. 1,400lb .9 mach 350lb warhead Exocets, which didn't actually explode in a few cases, IIRC. Versus this, presumably P-270 Moskit, which are 10,000lbs, mach 3, and 700lb warheads. Here is a Harpoon (broadly comparable to an Exocet, but with a heavier warhead) hitting a target: (Around the 24 second mark) Shit blows up, yo. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:00:14 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is that sort of attitude that has led to our national debt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The relaxing of the requirements is based on fiscal reality; it will cost 11M per unit to build the current capability we have AAV It would have been better for the American taxpayers if the U.S. Marine Corps had realized fiscal reality during the EFV programme. The U.S. Marine Corps would have a new amphibious assault vehicle to support its core mission, and the taxpayers would be billions richer, or at least in less debt. 3 billion dollars over multiple FYDPs is budget dust in DC It is that sort of attitude that has led to our national debt. No that is the reality of some one who had done a DC tour and program manager |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:04:32 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No that is the reality of some one who had done a DC tour and program manager Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The relaxing of the requirements is based on fiscal reality; it will cost 11M per unit to build the current capability we have AAV It would have been better for the American taxpayers if the U.S. Marine Corps had realized fiscal reality during the EFV programme. The U.S. Marine Corps would have a new amphibious assault vehicle to support its core mission, and the taxpayers would be billions richer, or at least in less debt. 3 billion dollars over multiple FYDPs is budget dust in DC It is that sort of attitude that has led to our national debt. No that is the reality of some one who had done a DC tour and program manager Your rationalization is just that, a rationalization. It is enlightening to know that a tour in Washington D.C. makes one unconcerned with the expenditure of taxpayer money. I guess that phenomenon explains Congress' desire to spend more than it takes in as tax receipts as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:22:04 AM EDT
[#47]
No it enlightens one to reality; instead of a naivety portrayed by your posts The program ran from 88 to 2011 and only costs 3 billion; that is a near miracle in the US government |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:26:48 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it enlightens one to reality; instead of a naivety portrayed by your posts The program ran from 88 to 2011 and only costs 3 billion; that is a near miracle in the US government I see. The U.S. Marine Corps should be applauded for running a program for 13 years, have no production units, and "only" cost the taxpayer three billion dollars. That is a sad reality that exists inside the beltway. The reality for those of us not on the government dole and paying taxes is that our government wasted $3 billion of our money with nothing to show for it. Even worse, it has started another program, ACV, whose cost is yet to be determined. In other words, the total cost of the EFV failure is yet to be determined. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:33:40 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see. The U.S. Marine Corps should be applauded for running a program for 13 years, have no production units, and "only" cost the taxpayer three billion dollars. That is a sad reality that exists inside the beltway. The reality for those of us not on the government dole and paying taxes is that our government wasted $3 billion of our money with nothing to show for it. Even worse, it has started another program, ACV, whose cost is yet to be determined. In other words, the total cost of the EFV failure is yet to be determined. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No it enlightens one to reality; instead of a naivety portrayed by your posts The program ran from 88 to 2011 and only costs 3 billion; that is a near miracle in the US government I see. The U.S. Marine Corps should be applauded for running a program for 13 years, have no production units, and "only" cost the taxpayer three billion dollars. That is a sad reality that exists inside the beltway. The reality for those of us not on the government dole and paying taxes is that our government wasted $3 billion of our money with nothing to show for it. Even worse, it has started another program, ACV, whose cost is yet to be determined. In other words, the total cost of the EFV failure is yet to be determined. 23 years and when you are pushing technology it costs money |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:35:05 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
23 years and when you are pushing technology it costs money Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No it enlightens one to reality; instead of a naivety portrayed by your posts The program ran from 88 to 2011 and only costs 3 billion; that is a near miracle in the US government I see. The U.S. Marine Corps should be applauded for running a program for 13 years, have no production units, and "only" cost the taxpayer three billion dollars. That is a sad reality that exists inside the beltway. The reality for those of us not on the government dole and paying taxes is that our government wasted $3 billion of our money with nothing to show for it. Even worse, it has started another program, ACV, whose cost is yet to be determined. In other words, the total cost of the EFV failure is yet to be determined. 23 years and when you are pushing technology it costs money As long as it is not coming out of your wallet, right? |
|
|
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.
