Another Divisive, Partisan Thread

[Necronomicon]

More like

[klenke]

ehmmic said: Where are they going to put the damn thing?

The U.S.A. is going to be at war for so long the carrier will never be in port long enough to need its own dock berth. It'll just trade out with the last carrier that was moored. This will continue until the carrier is old and in need of replacing (about 20 years from now), at which time it will be scuttled in the Red Sea where it has spent most of those twenty years.

[Bronco]

ehmmic said:

Still doesn't make anysense to me given that they are proposing shutting down up to 1/4 of the naval bases. Where are they going to put the damn thing? Haven't they put 2 or 3 new carriers into service inthe past 10 years?

 

I believe it's part of the response to the need for a "rapid deployment" military. You can move a lot of shit fast in one of those big suckers.

[Greg_W]

Bronco said:

ehmmic said:

Still doesn't make anysense to me given that they are proposing shutting down up to 1/4 of the naval bases. Where are they going to put the damn thing? Haven't they put 2 or 3 new carriers into service inthe past 10 years?

 

I believe it's part of the response to the need for a "rapid deployment" military. You can move a lot of shit fast in one of those big suckers.

 

Not to mention the fact that an aircraft carrier is a VERY commanding presence and can deploy airborne assets to targets up to 1,000 miles from its location. Result: more presence and firepower with less men.

[E-rock]

Wow, this aircraft carrier concept sounds nifty, [sarcasm]we should have been using them all along and reducing our manpower overseas[/sarcasm].

[Greg_W]

E-rock said:

Wow, this aircraft carrier concept sounds nifty, we should have been using them all along and reducing our manpower overseas.

 

We've been using them since WWII, nitwit.

[E-rock]

oops, where have I been?

[Greg_W]

E-rock said:

oops, where have I been?

 

Trying to pull your head out of your ass? I dunno.

[E-rock]

I used to build plastic models of them. I thought they were just toys!

 

I was actually commenting on your post about reducing manpower, I don't think that's a valid point when we've been using aircraft carriers all along. One more isn't going to reduce our manpower abroad, ya see? Nitwit.

[Greg_W]

E-Rock,

 

In my understanding, having an aircraft carrier sitting off the coast of somewhere sends a much louder message than having a troopship full of Marines sitting in the same place. An aircraft carrier can reach out a lot farther and put the hurt on with greater ease than attempting to land troops and get into action. That was my point, not that it would necessarily lessen the number of troops currently needed in the Iraq situation.

 

Greg_W

[E-rock]

We're killing this thread Greg.

[Greg_W]

E-rock said:

We're killing this thread Greg.

 

"We"? You got a mouse in your pocket? My posts are quite eloquent and filled with good information. Yours look like a 2nd grader's homework written in Ebonics.

[E-rock]

Greg_W said:

E-rock said:

We're killing this thread Greg.

 

"We"? You got a mouse in your pocket? My posts are quite eloquent and filled with good information. Yours look like a 2nd grader's homework written in Ebonics.

 

That's more like, beeotch

[Ursa_Eagle]

Greg_W said:

My posts are quite eloquent and filled with good information.

 

funniest thing I've read on this site today!

[chucK]

I think they might be needing another one of these down the road as its supposedly pretty easy to f*ck one of these jillion dollar babies up with a missle or two.

 

They're pretty good though when you're pummeling some little shit country without any gizmos.

[Greg_W]

chucK said:

I think they might be needing another one of these down the road as its supposedly pretty easy to f*ck one of these jillion dollar babies up with a missle or two.

 

They're pretty good though when you're pummeling some little shit country without any gizmos.

 

Actually, chuck, I think they have pretty good countermeasures. That, and having a few F-18's flying high cover on constant rotation when they are in a hot zone.

 

You're actually pretty fucking ignorant aren't you chuck?

[chucK]

Yeah right, an F-18 is gonna knock down a missle .

 

Patriot missles are a sham. Public relations to make us feel safe. Or should I say, make us feel happy about sending our sons and our neighbors' sons out into the fray under nebulous pretenses.

[Greg_W]

chucK said:

Yeah right, an F-18 is gonna knock down a missle .

 

Patriot missles are a sham. Public relations to make us feel safe. Or should I say, make us feel happy about sending our sons and our neighbors' sons out into the fray under nebulous pretenses.

 

I did say "other countermeasures", didn't I? You are fucking stupid, chuck. No answer will satisfy you, because you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about except that you think aircraft carriers are "bad" and war is "mean". Fuck off, you tool.

[jon]

SIMMAH DOWN NAH!!!!!

 

[chucK]

Hehe guess you gave up on this one. Had to fall back on your old standby since you got nothing worthwhile to spout.

 

By other countermeasures I assume you're talking about anti-missle missles, thus my comments on Patriots.

 

Big ol' carriers are risky. One lucky missle and it's a jillion dollars down the drain. I think it'd be smarter to be diversified and stick with smaller ships packin' cruise missles.

[Bronco]

chucK said:..it's a jillion dollars...

 

is that more or less than "ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS!!"

[JayB]

Aren't most destoyers equiped with something called a "Phalanx?" From what I recall its a system composed of some sort of computer controlled mega-round machine gun type deal for knocking down inbound airborne stuff at close range. Could be for planes but I seem to remember it being dedicated to missile defense...

[Sphinx]

Bronco said:

chucK said:..it's a jillion dollars...

 

is that more or less than "ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS!!"

Right back atcha, chucKy!

[JayB]

Phalanx:

 

"Close-In Weapon System (CIWS)

 

Phalanx is a fast reaction, rapid fire 20mm gun system. It provides R.A.N. Surface Units with a terminal defence against anti-ship missiles. It is designed to engage anti-ship cruise missiles and fixed wing aircraft at close range.

 

Phalanx automatically engages functions normally performed by independent systems such as search, detection, threat evaluation, aquisition, track, firing, target destruction, kill assessment and cease fire.

 

Weight - 13,600 pounds

Gun Type M-61A1 Gatling

Rate of Fire - 4,500 Rounds per minute

Magazine Capacity - 1550 Rounds

Calibre - 20mm

Ammunition - Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS), Depleted uranium sub-calibre. Penetrator converted to Tungsten in 1988.

Sensors - Self contained search and track radar. "

 

"Features: Phalanx provides ships of the U.S. Navy with a "last-chance" defense against anti-ship missiles and littoral warfare threats that have penetrated other fleet defenses. Phalanx automatically detects, tracks and engages anti-air warfare threats such as anti-ship missiles and aircraft, while the Block 1B's man-in-the-loop system counters the emerging littoral warfare threat. This new threat includes small,high-speed surface craft, small terrorist aircraft, helicopters and surface mines. Phalanx accomplishes these engagements via an advanced search and track radar system integrated with a stabilized, forward looking infra-red (FLIR) detector. This integrated FLIR provides Phalanx with an unique multi-spectral detect and track capability for littoral warfare threats and dramatically improves the existing anti-air warfare capability. Block 1B also incorporates new Optimized Gun Barrels which provide improved barrel life, improved round dispersion and increased engagement ranges."

 

 

 

 

 

[Greg_W]

chucK said:

Hehe guess you gave up on this one. Had to fall back on your old standby since you got nothing worthwhile to spout.

 

By other countermeasures I assume you're talking about anti-missle missles, thus my comments on Patriots.

 

Big ol' carriers are risky. One lucky missle and it's a jillion dollars down the drain. I think it'd be smarter to be diversified and stick with smaller ships packin' cruise missles.

 

Didn't give up, I just don't sit on my ass waiting for you to drool out some unintelligent prose.

 

No, not Patriots, there ARE other types of anti-missile ordinance.

 

Boy, why aren't you on the Joint Chiefs with all this great knowledge chuck? Do you understand what type of striking power a carrier hauls around? And do you think that carriers just float off by themselves to some Godforsaken enemy country? No, they called 'carrier groups' for a reason; a carrier travels with a wide array of support vessels, including your "smaller ships packin' cruise missles[sic]" Think about this: without carriers, how do we project our airborne Navy?

 

Greg_W