Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Page / 5
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:02:37 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Swoosh101:
Originally Posted By Sealy:
Originally Posted By Depidy_Dawg:
Huh, wonder how much a .50 cal round costs?
Either that or a d....d.d.d.dddrone.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Predator_and_Hellfire.jpg




http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/320/0/0/Friendly_PREDATOR_MISSILE_by_adrak.jpg


I love the picture, but its a Reaper, not a Predator
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:02:39 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Katana16j:

Amen.

If there is one general produced by WWII who truly "Got it" about the future of Warfare, it was Lemay.
View Quote


Yep.

“The long range future of the AAF lies in the field of guided missiles."
Curtis Lemay, 1945
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:06:33 PM EDT
I like this one better.

Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:16:07 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


That is cool.
but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it?
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:16:43 PM EDT
If they can hit a bobbing dingy, they can hit a moving truck or tank. This is a test case, or a challenge, that stretches skills and technical requirements.

Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:17:14 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
If they can hit a bobbing dingy, they can hit a moving truck or tank. This is a test case, or a challenge, that stretches skills and technical requirements.

View Quote


yeah.
we have been hitting moving targets for a while now.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:18:02 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


yeah.
we have been hitting moving targets for a while now.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
If they can hit a bobbing dingy, they can hit a moving truck or tank. This is a test case, or a challenge, that stretches skills and technical requirements.



yeah.
we have been hitting moving targets for a while now.

Small boats are much harder.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:19:19 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


That is cool.
but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


That is cool.
but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it?


Speaking of which...

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/retire-b-1-fleet-to-save-future-bombers-defense-experts/
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:19:59 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dport:

Small boats are much harder.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
If they can hit a bobbing dingy, they can hit a moving truck or tank. This is a test case, or a challenge, that stretches skills and technical requirements.



yeah.
we have been hitting moving targets for a while now.

Small boats are much harder.


the laser thing on water is a good point and the more I think about it the more the counter measures (from the red side) start to come up.
I was referring more to LGB noting that this is a work up to trucks and tanks. I was noting that its the other way around.
we started with trucks.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:24:13 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


the laser thing on water is a good point and the more I think about it the more the counter measures (from the red side) start to come up.
I was referring more to LGB noting that this is a work up to trucks and tanks. I was noting that its the other way around.
we started with trucks.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
If they can hit a bobbing dingy, they can hit a moving truck or tank. This is a test case, or a challenge, that stretches skills and technical requirements.



yeah.
we have been hitting moving targets for a while now.

Small boats are much harder.


the laser thing on water is a good point and the more I think about it the more the counter measures (from the red side) start to come up.
I was referring more to LGB noting that this is a work up to trucks and tanks. I was noting that its the other way around.
we started with trucks.


Exactly. These boats are smaller, faster, more maneuverable and physics presents other challenges, one of which you noted. AH-64 brings a lot to this fight as well.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:33:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:39:10 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheGrayMan:


Nice work.

A handful of competent riflemen could make boarding that ship a real bitch.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheGrayMan:
Originally Posted By ContrarianIndicator:
This seems adequate and significantly more cost effective than spending a $100,000s of dollars on b1 sorties.

http://youtu.be/RVnpY8HhTwU


Nice work.

A handful of competent riflemen could make boarding that ship a real bitch.


That's great for pirates.

This test wasn't about pirates trying to board a ship.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:39:30 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dport:

Small boats are much harder.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
If they can hit a bobbing dingy, they can hit a moving truck or tank. This is a test case, or a challenge, that stretches skills and technical requirements.



yeah.
we have been hitting moving targets for a while now.

Small boats are much harder.


I bet all the sailors say that.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 2:42:55 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Katana16j:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


That is cool.
but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it?


Speaking of which...

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/retire-b-1-fleet-to-save-future-bombers-defense-experts/


And why are still buying bombers?

"when satisfactory ground to ground missiles become standard equipment, the need for both air to ground and air to air weapons will be definitely decreased. Of great importance is the long range ground to ground guided missile. This will be the strategic long range bombardment airplane of the future."
Hap Arnold 1947
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 3:08:12 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TexasRifleman1985:
.... Ummm.... I'm fairly sure that's a training bomb...


Bomber pilots training to drop training bombs on training targets during training missions... Stop the presses!




That's a pretty impressive hit, actually... Even with modern PGMs.

I guess the author of that article doesn't understand that pilots need to train? And you might as well give them very difficult targets to train against. Doesn't get a lot harder to hit than a motorized fishing boat with a screaming engine.
View Quote

I would agree. This is more about a difficult training exercise and a demonstration of skill and technological ability than a policy decision.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 3:31:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
This is more about a difficult training exercise and a demonstration of skill and technological ability than a policy decision.
View Quote


I suspect it has to do with the .gov hatred of bass boats and is merely a continuation of Bush's War on Tourism.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 3:34:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cheesebeast:


I suspect it has to do with the .gov hatred of bass boats and is merely a continuation of Bush's War on Tourism.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cheesebeast:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
This is more about a difficult training exercise and a demonstration of skill and technological ability than a policy decision.


I suspect it has to do with the .gov hatred of bass boats and is merely a continuation of Bush's War on Tourism.

Fucking bass boats. (grumble, grumble, grumble)
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 3:36:24 PM EDT
At least with fiscal responsibility like this I have no worries about Social Security being around when I'm going to need it.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 3:37:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PredatorWhacker:
At least with fiscal responsibility like this I have no worries about Social Security being around when I'm going to need it.
View Quote

So what specifically is wasteful here?
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 3:38:27 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
That image sums up our problems so well
View Quote


multi-million/billion dollar weapons platforms used against boats, mud huts, and goat-herders wielding AK-47's converted from shovels.

It makes no sense.

$16,000,000,000,000.00

Right damn with you.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 3:41:11 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


And why are still buying bombers?

"when satisfactory ground to ground missiles become standard equipment, the need for both air to ground and air to air weapons will be definitely decreased. Of great importance is the long range ground to ground guided missile. This will be the strategic long range bombardment airplane of the future."
Hap Arnold 1947
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Katana16j:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


That is cool.
but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it?


Speaking of which...

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/retire-b-1-fleet-to-save-future-bombers-defense-experts/


And why are still buying bombers?

"when satisfactory ground to ground missiles become standard equipment, the need for both air to ground and air to air weapons will be definitely decreased. Of great importance is the long range ground to ground guided missile. This will be the strategic long range bombardment airplane of the future."
Hap Arnold 1947




Because then ARFCOM would get all pissy when we smack a fishing boat with a MIRV.



I'm kidding. I'm a believer that most of the USAF offensive capability should be pilotless and non-air breathing.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 3:50:17 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MadProfessor:




Because then ARFCOM would get all pissy when we smack a fishing boat with a MIRV.



I'm kidding. I'm a believer that most of the USAF offensive capability should be pilotless and non-air breathing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MadProfessor:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Katana16j:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


That is cool.
but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it?


Speaking of which...

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/retire-b-1-fleet-to-save-future-bombers-defense-experts/


And why are still buying bombers?

"when satisfactory ground to ground missiles become standard equipment, the need for both air to ground and air to air weapons will be definitely decreased. Of great importance is the long range ground to ground guided missile. This will be the strategic long range bombardment airplane of the future."
Hap Arnold 1947




Because then ARFCOM would get all pissy when we smack a fishing boat with a MIRV.



I'm kidding. I'm a believer that most of the USAF offensive capability should be pilotless and non-air breathing.

There are huge problems with chucking ballistic missiles at enemies that are not technical in nature.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 3:59:13 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MadProfessor:




Because then ARFCOM would get all pissy when we smack a fishing boat with a MIRV.



I'm kidding. I'm a believer that most of the USAF offensive capability should be pilotless and non-air breathing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MadProfessor:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Katana16j:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


That is cool.
but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it?


Speaking of which...

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/retire-b-1-fleet-to-save-future-bombers-defense-experts/


And why are still buying bombers?

"when satisfactory ground to ground missiles become standard equipment, the need for both air to ground and air to air weapons will be definitely decreased. Of great importance is the long range ground to ground guided missile. This will be the strategic long range bombardment airplane of the future."
Hap Arnold 1947




Because then ARFCOM would get all pissy when we smack a fishing boat with a MIRV.



I'm kidding. I'm a believer that most of the USAF offensive capability should be pilotless and non-air breathing.


Airpower is inherently offensive and strategic.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 4:00:02 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:


There are huge problems with chucking ballistic missiles at enemies that are not technical in nature.
View Quote


It doesn't have to be a ballistic missle.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 4:00:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MadProfessor:


It doesn't have to be a ballistic missle.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MadProfessor:
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:


There are huge problems with chucking ballistic missiles at enemies that are not technical in nature.


It doesn't have to be a ballistic missle.

Then it gets very expensive very quickly. Recreating the human brain is not cheap.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 4:03:35 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Would the bomb even need to explode to be effective? What if we put a smart bomb kit on a 2,000 pound chunk of concrete?
View Quote


Was just thinking the EXACT same thing. So much of this third world shit, just drop a big damn rock on it and you're good.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 4:04:19 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
There are huge problems with chucking ballistic missiles at enemies that are not technical in nature.
View Quote


especially when your enemy has the same capability.
Its almost as if you would reach an equilibrium where direct conflict would be largely avoided and gains made through small, proxy wars that mostly concern challenges of influence over third parties.

hmmmmmm.
where have I heard this before?

“To stop the aggressor nation from even planning the attack, through fear of retaliation. Air power should be seen not as a war fighting instrument but as an instrument of national policy. One capable of toppling the diplomatic balance and perhaps eventually creating mutual deterrence through terror between two nations both capable of power air actions.”

Major General Andrews, commander of the General Headquarters of the Army Air Force in 1939
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 4:04:26 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


That is cool.
but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


That is cool.
but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it?


Well, if that $500,000 sortie carries 24 stealthy anti-ship missiles 9,000 miles to take out a Chinese carrier group I'd say that's a powerful argument to it's value.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 4:05:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/18/2013 4:06:11 PM EDT by H46Driver]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By outofstep:


Was just thinking the EXACT same thing. So much of this third world shit, just drop a big damn rock on it and you're good.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By outofstep:
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Would the bomb even need to explode to be effective? What if we put a smart bomb kit on a 2,000 pound chunk of concrete?


Was just thinking the EXACT same thing. So much of this third world shit, just drop a big damn rock on it and you're good.


Only if you hit it. Bombs throw off nice frag patterns if HOB is set properly. Close enough counts with a bomb.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 4:09:43 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DarkNite:


Well, if that $500,000 sortie carries 24 stealthy anti-ship missiles 9,000 miles to take out a Chinese carrier group I'd say that's a powerful argument to it's value.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DarkNite:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


That is cool.
but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it?


Well, if that $500,000 sortie carries 24 stealthy anti-ship missiles 9,000 miles to take out a Chinese carrier group I'd say that's a powerful argument to it's value.


If the standoff is proper, you get the same effect with a P8.

Stop asking for an airframe.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 4:10:59 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DarkNite:


Well, if that $500,000 sortie carries 24 stealthy anti-ship missiles 9,000 miles to take out a Chinese carrier group I'd say that's a powerful argument to it's value.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DarkNite:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


That is cool.
but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it?


Well, if that $500,000 sortie carries 24 stealthy anti-ship missiles 9,000 miles to take out a Chinese carrier group I'd say that's a powerful argument to it's value.

I'm all in favor of having some super-duper high end whiz-bang shit with all the trimmings.

I'm not in favor of using them to kill dirt farmers with rusty Mosin Nagants in Afghanistan.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 4:12:20 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


If the standoff is proper, you get the same effect with a P8.

Stop asking for an airframe.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By DarkNite:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


That is cool.
but do we really need a 500,000 per sortie bomber to do it?


Well, if that $500,000 sortie carries 24 stealthy anti-ship missiles 9,000 miles to take out a Chinese carrier group I'd say that's a powerful argument to it's value.


If the standoff is proper, you get the same effect with a P8.

Stop asking for an airframe.
No you don't.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 4:14:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/18/2013 4:15:15 PM EDT by 2A373]
If one LGB being dropped is getting people worked up, then this will make their heads explode.









Link Posted: 9/18/2013 4:47:07 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Have you seen any of the liveleak videos posted here.

A bunch of morons cheering the annihilation of some goat-herder with a million dollar missile. Then they can't understand why a few of his sons want to take some flight lessons..

Blow back...it...is...a...bitch.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xV16qje8prk/TVut9b1WHBI/AAAAAAAADXA/NZEYMONqU0A/s1600/alpacino019.jpg

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
Originally Posted By ContrarianIndicator:
That's not a jdam.

Seems like overkill.

Have you seen any of the liveleak videos posted here.

A bunch of morons cheering the annihilation of some goat-herder with a million dollar missile. Then they can't understand why a few of his sons want to take some flight lessons..

Blow back...it...is...a...bitch.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xV16qje8prk/TVut9b1WHBI/AAAAAAAADXA/NZEYMONqU0A/s1600/alpacino019.jpg



They would be fine with a B-52 caret bombing the entire village? That can be arranged.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 4:49:54 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
That image sums up our problems so wellhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/09/130904-F-XX000-023.jpg



multi-million/billion dollar weapons platforms used against boats, mud huts, and goat-herders wielding AK-47's converted from shovels.

It makes no sense.

$16,000,000,000,000.00

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
View Quote


You do realize the point was just to showcase capability, and they are not actually planning on sinking motor boats with B-1's right?
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 5:21:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/18/2013 5:21:47 PM EDT by SmilingBandit]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


especially when your enemy has the same capability.
Its almost as if you would reach an equilibrium where direct conflict would be largely avoided and gains made through small, proxy wars that mostly concern challenges of influence over third parties.

hmmmmmm.
where have I heard this before?

“To stop the aggressor nation from even planning the attack, through fear of retaliation. Air power should be seen not as a war fighting instrument but as an instrument of national policy. One capable of toppling the diplomatic balance and perhaps eventually creating mutual deterrence through terror between two nations both capable of power air actions.”

Major General Andrews, commander of the General Headquarters of the Army Air Force in 1939
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
There are huge problems with chucking ballistic missiles at enemies that are not technical in nature.


especially when your enemy has the same capability.
Its almost as if you would reach an equilibrium where direct conflict would be largely avoided and gains made through small, proxy wars that mostly concern challenges of influence over third parties.

hmmmmmm.
where have I heard this before?

“To stop the aggressor nation from even planning the attack, through fear of retaliation. Air power should be seen not as a war fighting instrument but as an instrument of national policy. One capable of toppling the diplomatic balance and perhaps eventually creating mutual deterrence through terror between two nations both capable of power air actions.”

Major General Andrews, commander of the General Headquarters of the Army Air Force in 1939


So we build these systems that are too powerful for either side to use...don't we still need more conventional forces to act in the proxy wars since we can't use our doomsday weapons?
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 5:25:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Would the bomb even need to explode to be effective? What if we put a smart bomb kit on a 2,000 pound chunk of concrete?
View Quote

That is what you are looking at.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 5:32:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 6:44:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 7:06:17 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlaIl9J14H4

Take that video with a giant grain of salt or two.

All you guys that think a JDAM kit can be strapped to a chunk of concrete please stop. It's an entertaining idea that will do nothing more than waste the kit.

View Quote
Yeah, the insanity! Who would be stupid enough to do something like that?
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 7:21:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 7:22:05 PM EDT
I'd be a proud American if the next goat raper that tries to pull a USS Cole attack gets a 2,000 lb present from a B1B on his fucking head, directly.

Maybe that is just me though.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 7:39:31 PM EDT
For Somali pirates I would use the AC-130. Good range and loiter and lots of ammo. I don't imaging the Somalis have much in the way of anti aircraft weapons.

For Iranian speed boats smaller more manuverable aircraft would seem to be the ticket since you would be in range of Iranian air defenses.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 7:42:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/18/2013 7:45:44 PM EDT by Dunkelzahn]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:


That's not the same idea, and you know it.

That's a really old article, too.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By AeroE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlaIl9J14H4

Take that video with a giant grain of salt or two.

All you guys that think a JDAM kit can be strapped to a chunk of concrete please stop. It's an entertaining idea that will do nothing more than waste the kit.

Yeah, the insanity! Who would be stupid enough to do something like that?
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/world/us-wields-defter-weapon-against-iraq-concrete-bomb.html



That's not the same idea, and you know it.

That's a really old article, too.

Wait, so if it's old that means it never happened?

How is it not the same idea? Ok, I admit that saying "use a chunk of concrete" is simplified but I didn't want to type out "Take a GBU-24 practice munition, fill it with concrete and use it's guidance package to home in on the target."
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 7:54:39 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History

That's nice, but it needs more SNIPER pod.


Link Posted: 9/18/2013 7:57:42 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
That image sums up our problems so well
View Quote


multi-million/billion dollar weapons platforms used against boats, mud huts, and goat-herders wielding AK-47's converted from shovels.

It makes no sense.

$16,000,000,000,000.00


Why would they be dropping an inert bomb (painted blue, only inert bombs are painted blue) on a dinghy?
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 7:58:11 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
Originally Posted By The_Evil_One:
Good when you want to go out there OP and fight the enemy I'll remember to tell you why I couldn't call in CAS for you when your position is being overrun.

When you actually have some skin in the game come back to us.


I love the appeal to emotion. Even if it's totally ridiculous.


I'm sorry, has GD instituted a policy of formalized debate?


If not, then your reply is pointless.
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 8:04:41 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AmericanPeople:


What is all the churned up water ahead of the boat? Is it being pulled and if so by a manned boat? I sure would want a LOOOONG tether between the two boats.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AmericanPeople:
Originally Posted By TerryC:
Has no one else noticed that R2D2 is driving the boat?



What is all the churned up water ahead of the boat? Is it being pulled and if so by a manned boat? I sure would want a LOOOONG tether between the two boats.



I imagine it was remote, similar to these jet ski's we used to play with:

Link Posted: 9/18/2013 8:25:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/18/2013 8:27:14 PM EDT by AeroE]
Link Posted: 9/18/2013 8:29:32 PM EDT
Page / 5
Top Top