About Us

F*O*A*D

On 4/19/14, 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:29:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Leaving almost no wake and reducing the heat signature to make it
"stealthy" implies certain knowledge of everyone else's technology, and
that there is no further development in same. Whatever the Navy does, it
doesn't have a cloaking device and the ship will be visible.

Perhaps if you actually understood how this ship was armed you would
understand a bit more about the mission. It is a platform for stand
off weapons designed to hit land targets or sea targets, hundreds of
miles away.
It is a whole lot cheaper than putting an aircraft carrier out there
and risking pilots.

Oh, I understand our liking for anonymous warfare fought at a distance.
Perhaps some of our enemies will get their hands on standoff weapons,
too. It doesn't take a lot of technology these days to launch an exocet
like missile 100 miles away from New York City and not care particularly
where in the city it lands.

F*O*A*D

On 4/19/14, 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:41:51 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/19/14, 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:29:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Leaving almost no wake and reducing the heat signature to make it
"stealthy" implies certain knowledge of everyone else's technology, and
that there is no further development in same. Whatever the Navy does, it
doesn't have a cloaking device and the ship will be visible.

Perhaps if you actually understood how this ship was armed you would
understand a bit more about the mission. It is a platform for stand
off weapons designed to hit land targets or sea targets, hundreds of
miles away.
It is a whole lot cheaper than putting an aircraft carrier out there
and risking pilots.

Oh, I understand our liking for anonymous warfare fought at a distance.
Perhaps some of our enemies will get their hands on standoff weapons,
too. It doesn't take a lot of technology these days to launch an exocet
like missile 100 miles away from New York City and not care particularly
where in the city it lands.

I am not sure why you don't love this weapons system. It was conceived
during the Clinton Administration (1994) when the US foreign policy
was called "Tomahawk Diplomacy".

It was perfect for sitting out in the Arabian Sea and lobbing a few
million dollar missiles into an aspirin factory in Sudan. (looking for
that pesky WMD).
Sorry, Mr security guard, you should have called in sick.

You are a lot more "doctrinaire" than I am, it seems. But of
course...you're a "conservative."

Califbill

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:41:51 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/19/14, 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:29:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Leaving almost no wake and reducing the heat signature to make it
"stealthy" implies certain knowledge of everyone else's technology, and
that there is no further development in same. Whatever the Navy does, it
doesn't have a cloaking device and the ship will be visible.

Perhaps if you actually understood how this ship was armed you would
understand a bit more about the mission. It is a platform for stand
off weapons designed to hit land targets or sea targets, hundreds of
miles away.
It is a whole lot cheaper than putting an aircraft carrier out there
and risking pilots.

Oh, I understand our liking for anonymous warfare fought at a distance.
Perhaps some of our enemies will get their hands on standoff weapons,
too. It doesn't take a lot of technology these days to launch an exocet
like missile 100 miles away from New York City and not care particularly
where in the city it lands.

I am not sure why you don't love this weapons system. It was conceived
during the Clinton Administration (1994) when the US foreign policy
was called "Tomahawk Diplomacy".

It was perfect for sitting out in the Arabian Sea and lobbing a few
million dollar missiles into an aspirin factory in Sudan. (looking for
that pesky WMD).
Sorry, Mr security guard, you should have called in sick.

You are a lot more "doctrinaire" than I am, it seems. But of
course...you're a "conservative."

Sounds, looks like, Clinton in the Balkans.

KC

On 4/19/2014 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:41:51 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Oh, I understand our liking for anonymous warfare fought at a distance.

What are you implying harry, cause it seems it's your party that shoots
their weapons and their mouth, from behind a skirt?

Perhaps some of our enemies will get their hands on standoff weapons,
too. It doesn't take a lot of technology these days to launch an exocet
like missile 100 miles away from New York City and not care particularly
where in the city it lands.

Bull****, you couldn't launch it if they gave you the keys and showed
you the red button, then aiming it at any city... well, let's just say
you are full of **** as usual...

I am not sure why you don't love this weapons system. It was conceived
during the Clinton Administration (1994) when the US foreign policy
was called "Tomahawk Diplomacy".

It was perfect for sitting out in the Arabian Sea and lobbing a few
million dollar missiles into an aspirin factory in Sudan. (looking for
that pesky WMD).
Sorry, Mr security guard, you should have called in sick.

KC

On 4/19/2014 10:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:41:51 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/19/14, 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:29:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Leaving almost no wake and reducing the heat signature to make it
"stealthy" implies certain knowledge of everyone else's technology, and
that there is no further development in same. Whatever the Navy does, it
doesn't have a cloaking device and the ship will be visible.

Perhaps if you actually understood how this ship was armed you would
understand a bit more about the mission. It is a platform for stand
off weapons designed to hit land targets or sea targets, hundreds of
miles away.
It is a whole lot cheaper than putting an aircraft carrier out there
and risking pilots.

Oh, I understand our liking for anonymous warfare fought at a distance.
Perhaps some of our enemies will get their hands on standoff weapons,
too. It doesn't take a lot of technology these days to launch an exocet
like missile 100 miles away from New York City and not care particularly
where in the city it lands.

BTW why would you launch an Exocet missile into New York City?
I guess you don't know what an Exocet missile really is. (wave top
hugging, open water weapon)

If someone wanted a couple hundred pound bomb in New York they could
just put it in the trunk of a cab and drive it to exactly where they
wanted it to go off. The Exocet is not going to be that accurate and
it will hit the first building it crosses on land. To be effective
they would need to be in the harbor when they shot it. Even then, it
might decide a big metal subway sign down near the battery was the
most attractive target.

harry was lying, to get you to respond. He makes a ridiculous comment
like the one above based in nothing but his own fantasy world, and he
gets attention. Hell, he doesn't even have to work for it anymore

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Not this time of year	Rob	General	0	November 29th 09 01:48 AM
359# Warsaw Grouper!	D K[_15_]	General	22	July 1st 09 02:17 AM
That time of year again	Mundo	ASA	2	March 19th 07 05:34 AM
That time of year again!	Don White	General	87	February 19th 06 12:49 AM
O.T. It's that time of year	RGrew176	General	0	March 30th 04 02:08 AM

Menu

About Us