User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/5/2005 8:15:33 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2005 8:16:40 PM EDT
[#2]
I C T Y B T I H T K Y
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2005 8:19:27 PM EDT
[#3]
What secret naval aircraft has come to light in the past 50 years? None
Airforce? U-2, SR-71, Valkirie, B-2, F-117 I don't consider the A-12 to be all that top secret, like the AF projects; its kinda like the F-22, everyone knows we got them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2005 8:22:25 PM EDT
[#4]
All they do at area 51 is play baseball. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2005 8:23:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Doesn’t the navy have a big base adjacent to the Bermuda Triangle? I bet they are responsible for all of it.
In all seriousness, I would suspect the Navy is probably more concerned with developing top secret submarine warfare type projects. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2005 8:36:13 PM EDT
[#6]
so thats Google Earth ... nice. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2005 11:28:48 PM EDT
[#7]
The Navy gave up that line of work after determining that you could land and launch C-130's on carriers and the eternally famous DASH program.
Rumor has it the C-130 pilot immediately became an alcoholic after the test. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:07:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Whats the name of that naval base in the carribbean? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:12:02 PM EDT
[#9]
All we know for sure is the Army and Navy are better at keeping secrets. Shok |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:14:27 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:16:29 PM EDT
[#11]
The Navy has a top secret, well actually, beyond top secret project involving magnets and... whooppss... I forgot, I wasn't supposed to say anything.
[Project Rainbow] [Philadelphia Experiment] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:20:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Top secret high tech stuff works well in missile silos and air-conditioned hangars.
On a rolling carrier making night traps in salty sea mist.....it pays to be low-tech. Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:20:33 PM EDT
[#13]
USN is more interested in super quiet subs, surface projects, etc.
Besides, our Pilots and Aircrew are better so we don't need to develope all the whiz-bang stuff 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:21:11 PM EDT
[#14]
The navy secret stuff is in their radars and other electronic fire control systems, and the stuff that goes into our subs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:22:29 PM EDT
[#15]
Are you seriously asking if someone will tell you what secret projects the services have?
 Do you really expect an answer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:23:08 PM EDT
[#16]
The Navy has the Super Bug. What else would you need? It's like having Chuck Norris, Vin Diesel, Steven Segall and Jean-Claude VanDamme all rolled into one package!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:27:56 PM EDT
[#17]
The Nav's got way better shit than the zoomies:
You may have seen the movie "Gray Lady Down" with Chuck Heston, but how many subs have Navy DSRVs actually rescued? (0) How about DOMP (the Deep Ocean Mining Project) and the USNS Glomar Explorer? It did some mining alright. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:33:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Duhhhh... no. It's obvious to the world that the Air Force is working on secret projects as far as jets, etc. It's obvious to the world that the Navy is working on secret projects such as underwater vehicles, etc. I'm asking is it known that the Navy works on projects for jets, etc. or do they just strictly let the air force do all of that? Obviously I don't expect answers about "what" they're working on, but we know of projects such as aurora, or even the JSF which isn't really classified, but does the Navy work on ANYTHING as far as jets go or do they strictly limit themselves to marine vessels? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:40:20 PM EDT
[#19]
The Glomar Explorer was a Navy ship? I thought Hughes owned and operated that rig for the CIA? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:44:20 PM EDT
[#20]
You'll have to pardon my confusion...when you asked "does the navy have any black projects," the only correct answer is "of course not." By definition, if you knew about it, it wouldn't be black. Last time I checked the Navy is looking at a carrier version of the JSF, but since the A-12 died about 10 years ago, they haven't been pushing hard for aviation assets. They've settled for turning the Hornet into an aviation Swiss Army knife, with a bunch of different mods to make it do pretty much everything. Anything else is classified Top Secret, Burn Before Reading, God's Eyes Only. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:44:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Care to check the history of spies caught both in those departments? I can think of several Navy incidents in the past 20 years and several more in the Army 30-40 years ago. Then again the Army really isn't a fair comparison as their technology is typically for the every day soldier, not ICBM's. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:48:55 PM EDT
[#22]
the AF just spends all the research money to justify their nearly useless existance. (yeah i went there) if it wasnt for their R&D they probably would have been 100% contracted out years ago. theres very few enlisted jobs in the AF that couldnt be done cheaper better and faster by civilian contractors. the benifits to american society from their research programs are immeasureable. hey, maybe they are good for something HAHAHA
<---donning my flame suit |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:54:59 PM EDT
[#23]
Shouldn't you be out there looking for another lost Harrier. That's the Navy/USMC true stealth aircraft. Everybody's looking for them. If it weren't for the USMC safety record, there wouldn't be "safety records".
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 1:42:06 PM EDT
[#24]
There was that Walker brother on the Enterprise. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 2:21:36 PM EDT
[#25]
The Navy realizes that dropping $200 million dollar aircraft into the ocean is going to get really old, really quick with the American public. They realized that with the F-14 and it's only worth 30 million. The Navy loses way too many aircraft launching and recovering, for it to afford anything bordering on a black project at least as far as aircraft go. And being that they have no real bombing capablity, their airpower contirbution to a war is limited at best. The Harrier's dismal accident ratio's make the F-16 look like a shining star, besides the obvious lack of perfromance.
The Navy's secrets are in it's subs and ships. It's attitude on aircraft is more of a throw away mentality, always has...always will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 2:37:44 PM EDT
[#26]
That's right. Unlike our blue-suited brethren, we can keep a secret. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 5:05:46 PM EDT
[#27]
+1. Speaking of which, whatever happened to the Glomar Explorer? Thanks, Merlin |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 5:52:35 PM EDT
[#28]
Guantanamo Bay (eastern tip of Cuba) edit: www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/nsgtmohome.htm |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 9:33:11 PM EDT
[#29]
Last seen the Glomar Explorer was sitting just east of the Martinez Bridge at the Suisun Bay Marad Inactive Ships Facility with it's towers cut down to fit under the bridge. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2005 5:36:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Not that one, its a small base with a sub port a saw it on the Discovery channel but i cant remember the name I wanted to pull up a pic on Google |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:04:30 AM EDT
[#31]
Anyone? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:10:57 AM EDT
[#32]
Absolute worst movie I have ever seen. Not my choice to watch it, circumstances dictated it. I want my 2 hours back. It was an absolute insult to my intelligence and would be an insult even to a retard's intelligence. Then again, a retard is a few levels up on the intelligence of the average hollyweirder... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:13:49 AM EDT
[#33]
Totally agreed. The only "unionized" branch of the armed forces lost their last mission when they were forced to cede the nuclear arsenal to STRATCOM. They should be rewrapped back into the US Army.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:14:23 AM EDT
[#34]
 Jamie Fox, playing a fighter pilot?!?! He should stick to comedy.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:15:58 AM EDT
[#35]
Count your blessings. I am dumber for having seen it.  The best part of the movie is that Jamie Fox dies...oh and the chick is hot. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:16:57 AM EDT
[#36]
Last I checked USAF still owns two parts of the triad. We gave them up just as much as you gave up the boomers. Opcon falls to Strat when the shooting starts, until then they stick with the 12th and the mighty 8th. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:18:03 AM EDT
[#37]
I agree, the also should be on the posters for FW&A... Roll them right back to the Army and be done with it. I despise the USAF as an entity because I have seen how they manipulate, compartmentalize and waaste resources. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:19:06 AM EDT
[#38]
Oh no he di'in't!?!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:20:53 AM EDT
[#39]
Trust me. The Army would fight that tooth and nail. Well, we WOULD take the A-10's.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:23:19 AM EDT
[#40]
What naval base in the carribean? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:28:31 AM EDT
[#41]
Its' a secret.. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:31:56 AM EDT
[#42]
Hmmmm...not really. Our A/C are hardly throw-away. In fact they have tons of neat "stuff" to help keep them flying in combat.c In fact, the Navy's Class "Alpha" type loss ratio for launch and recover events is remarkably low, especially when one considers the flying environment for the Navy aviators. Just as a yardstick, I recommend you go to this site and review the record of the F-16 over the years. F-16 Ultimate Site Scroll down the left to the "Mishap News" and review that. The loss rate is actually very high and much higher than Navy A/C. That said, I REALLY like the F-16 so this is not an anti-USAF bias...just trying to calibrate you a bit. As far as a "lack of bombing capability", I suggest you join the Navy, get into an aviation rating and deploy on a carrier. Then you would see how many bombing missions we fly. In DS I, the first wave of attack planes ingressing to downtown Baghdad and other targets was comprised of hundreds of Navy planes off of a six-carrier battle force. In fact, I don't have the raw numbers but I suspect there may have been more Navy sorties flown at least at first. In the WOT, the ONLY bombing support in some cases was from the carriers in the North Arabian Sea, since initially, the USAF had no bases from which to sortie. Treaties were quickly arranged and now we have bases with fine 10,000 ft runways for the AF attack A/C. In the meantime, Navy carriers flew off hundreds of missions against the Taliban in both strategic and tactical missions. Your military awareness fu is weak.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:33:57 AM EDT
[#43]
Oh the irony. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:35:34 AM EDT
[#44]
Some posts here make it sound like the USN still uses ropes and canvas to propel our ships. "Low tech"? These folks can't be serious.. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:40:53 AM EDT
[#45]
While some comments against the Air Force have been on target, this needs to be made clear.
You will always need our airlift, tankers, fighters, bombers, surveillance, satellites, and missiles. And our plasma TVs in every office. Each service plays a vital role in national defense. Don't forget that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:43:35 AM EDT
[#46]
USN has all of this minus the plasma TV's and can haul it anywhere in the world in 48 hours.. But sustained operations do require some additional help. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:48:04 AM EDT
[#47]
The C-2 does not count as "airlift." And while we're at it, an F-18 with a buddy pack does not a tanker make. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:51:38 AM EDT
[#48]
+1x10^6! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 11:02:14 AM EDT
[#49]
Alot of the F-16's class A rate comes from the fact it has only one trash can in the back. The lack of a second engine means that if you lose power, you're pretty much hitting the silk. But as to your other statements, how do you explain this statement if the AF nad no bases from the begining (even though Diego Garcia has been availible for our use since before Deser Storm): OEF began on Oct. 7, 2001. Gen. Richard B. Myers, the Air Force officer who had only recently become Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, announced the action. He said, "About 15 land-based bombers, some 25 strike aircraft from carriers, and US and British ships and submarines launching approximately 50 Tomahawk missiles have struck terrorist targets in Afghanistan." And I was under the impression that the first jets in Desert Storm to fly over Baghdad (one of the most well defended chunks of airspace in the world at the time) were 10 F-117s, not several hundred carrier based jets. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 11:10:57 AM EDT
[#50]
In todays corporate military, your services could be outsourced by FY07 and the rest would not miss a beat.
|
|
|
|
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.
