|
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:44:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote: why we have any interest in the middle east at all. It certainly is not oil. Maybe it's just simple humanitarianism. There are people being ****ed over all over the planet and we really do not care in most places. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:48:51 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote: We are not talking about a quarter mile, we are talking a few hundred feet and that cave system is bigger than that. Were they aiming only at a large mountain containing caves or perhaps the entrance to a particular It was pointed out by a military guy today on the talking head shows that if we were really targeting caves, we should have used the MOP, not the MOAB. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:49:20 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote: The goal in Vietnam wasn't to "win". Same in Korea. Why would we send our kids into a war we had no plans of winning? For humanitarian reasons? That is even sillier in this context than the one up thread a bit. If we were just interested in humanitarian causes, we would be bombing Afghanistan with food, books and satellite connected PCs. That would be a winning strategy in N Korea too. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:51:28 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 4/16/17 12:49 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:39:44 -0400, wrote: Why would we send our kids into a war we had no plans of winning? For humanitarian reasons? We helped kill a million asians for humanitarians reasons, eh? The flogging will continue until moral improves. |
MOAB story
|
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:52:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Isn't it odd that the progressive liberals who talk so much about rights of the downtrodden and oppressed seem to have little concern for those who live elsewhere in the world. No the odd thing is how specific we are about who we really care about around the world and how we try to "free" them. Our goal seems to be to replace whatever government they have with a US friendly dictator. There is no better recent example than Egypt. The US celebrated the Arab spring, gleefully watched them dump Mubarak, bragged about their free elections and then did everything we could to get rid of the democratically elected Morsi and reinstall a Mubarak apparatchik because Morsi was not going to toe the line. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:37:06 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:48:51 -0400, Poco Deplorevole wrote: We are not talking about a quarter mile, we are talking a few hundred feet and that cave system is bigger than that. Were they aiming only at a large mountain containing caves or perhaps the entrance to a particular It was pointed out by a military guy today on the talking head shows that if we were really targeting caves, we should have used the MOP, not the MOAB. Perhaps, if we needed a lot of penetration. But if the goal was to seal the entrance, then the MOAB was the right choice. Here is an article that should squelch some of the whining about the cost of the MOAB. Of course, Harry won't pay attention, 'cause then facts would confuse him. "Many reports Thursday, including USA Today, the Washington Examiner, CNBC and others, claimed the MOAB cost $314 million to develop, citing a 2011 Los Angeles Times report. The cost estimates in that article, however, only refer to the cost of the Air Force’s biggest bunker busting bomb, the 5,300 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), or GBU-57, which is built by private defense contractor Boeing Company. “At a total cost of about $314 million, the military has developed and ordered 20 of the GPS-guided bombs, called Massive Ordnance Penetrators,” the LA Times report says." further: "While the two bomb types are related, they serve different functions — the MOP is designed to destroy underground bunkers as deep as 200 feet below the surface, while the MOAP wipes out everything on the surface within a mile radius. The MOAB, like its Daisy Cutter predecessor, can only be dropped out of a C-130 built by Lockheed Martin, and the MOP is deployed from the B-2, a Boeing aircraft." http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...E2%80%99-20181 Gosh, maybe the military did the right thing after all. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:55:45 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote: Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want not. I'm thinking his 'old stuff' was *accidentally* left to begin 'oozing'. The Army, at least the units I was in, would use the older ammo for training as opposed to dumping it in the sea. I can't believe the Coast Guard would purposely let ammo get so old it began 'oozing' unless someone f'ed up big time. At least you admit ammo has a shelf life. I already said the 3 classes are ready service, training and trash. We had limited ability to actually shoot live ammo and it was seldom new when we got it anyway so disposal was pretty common. You also pointed out why it was pretty much free to drop this bomb. I doubt they "train" with an 18,000 bomb. What was your typical cycle time on your large caliber rounds (105-155 etc)? How long was it class 1, 2 and 3? |
MOAB story
|
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:15:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Why would we send our kids into a war we had no plans of winning? Ask Truman and LBJ. Both Bushs learned the lessons of Vietnam. Once a decision was made to wage a war, it was done so in a manner to win. Harry will yak about third rate armies, but a Russian tank is a tank regardless and Saddam had a bunch of them. Both excursions into Iraq weren't even close in terms of "not winning". The problem in Iraq is we did not know what a win looked like. We beat the army and hanged Saddam but nobody asked "what's next"? We have the same problem in Syria and to some extent Afghanistan, except we never beat anyone there. We killed a lot of people but there was never a decisive win. We actually accomplished more in Vietnam by admitting defeat and getting everyone out. When Ho moved south, he could not maintain the lie he perpetuated in the north because the people knew better and the country immediately moved into the 20th century. It makes me wonder what would happen if Kim had to assimilate 50 million 21st century South Koreans into his closed society and still have them believing he shot 10 holes in one in a row. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:20:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/16/2017 10:50 AM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:37:05 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote: Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want not. It may be a dumb plan but it is how the military operates. This comes down to chemistry more than politics. Explosives definitely have a shelf life and beyond that they become unreliable. They may just be less effective but they can also become more sensitive and that is a worse problem. The exudate that oozes out of shells loaded with TNT can be very dangerous. Military explosives generally have longer shelf lives than commercial explosives but that is simply more than a few years out to 20 or so. You keep saying that and I don't disagree with you when it comes to cheap, WWII era ordnance or .45 rounds that you apparently had some experience in disposing of in 1965. But, what makes you think or what evidence do you have that today, 52 years later (half a century) that the same policy exists for $15M a pop weapons? Because TNT is still TNT? I did a lot of reading on this but I can't find anything like the CG "282" manual online that defined storage and classification of ordinance. I did see references to explosives like Semtex and RDX saying they were only at their prime for 10 years. (by a company selling a replacement) I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the 21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too so it is likely to be chucked. This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are talking about real money. (Proxmire) Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand? How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes) |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:39:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/16/2017 1:02 PM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:24:06 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:20:57 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: I think the solution lies with the muslim world. We're not getting the kind of help or leadership from any of the Muslim countries that we need. === You're absolutely right about that. Pakistan is arguably one of the more advanced Muslim countries and they're still stoning people to death for blasphemy. So what? Why do we care what they do in their own country? There are plenty of western europeans who think we are barbarians too. I have to chuckle sometimes Greg but your comment (above) is why your Libertarian Party candidates will never stand a chance of being POTUS. Most people are horrified to see a woman being buried up to her neck in dirt and then stoned to death by her community ... often including her husband ... for suspicion of having an adulterous affair or making a blasphemous statement of Islam. Even Rand Paul, technically a Republican but with very strong Libertarian views, has a softer heart than that. I am as horrified as I am when the savages in Africa do similar things to their people but I would not risk my kid's life to stop them ... and evidently that view is shared by most Americans vis a vis Africa. 3d world people have different values and bombing them does not seem to change that. |
MOAB story
|
MOAB story
|
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 11:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Poco Deplorevole
wrote: On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:24:06 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:20:57 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: I think the solution lies with the muslim world. We're not getting the kind of help or leadership from any of the Muslim countries that we need. === You're absolutely right about that. Pakistan is arguably one of the more advanced Muslim countries and they're still stoning people to death for blasphemy. So what? Why do we care what they do in their own country? There are plenty of western europeans who think we are barbarians too. I can't believe you said that. Why? For the same reason you'd get ****ed if the guy across the street from you was kicking the **** out of his dog! If it was the guy on my street I would be upset but I am not going to Korea and tell a guy he can't eat his dog. Different culture, different rules. It is not our place to tell people half way around the world how they treat their dogs or their people when that has been their culture since the fall of Rome. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 14:10:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: I found Greg's comment a bit weird also. I don't think he really believes it and would be very disappointed if he did. He's a better man than that despite his Libertarian ways. :-) It has nothing to do with my virtue, it is my understanding that other cultures have different rules. As I said, Europe thinks we are pretty barbaric too. How many homicides did we have last year? How many executions? How many people are incarcerated? If we were talking about guns John, Jim, and the rest would be telling those nancy boys in Europe to mind their own business. |
MOAB story
|
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:06:41 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:55:45 -0400, Poco Deplorevole wrote: Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want not. I'm thinking his 'old stuff' was *accidentally* left to begin 'oozing'. The Army, at least the units I was in, would use the older ammo for training as opposed to dumping it in the sea. I can't believe the Coast Guard would purposely let ammo get so old it began 'oozing' unless someone f'ed up big time. At least you admit ammo has a shelf life. I already said the 3 classes are ready service, training and trash. We had limited ability to actually shoot live ammo and it was seldom new when we got it anyway so disposal was pretty common. You also pointed out why it was pretty much free to drop this bomb. I doubt they "train" with an 18,000 bomb. What was your typical cycle time on your large caliber rounds (105-155 etc)? How long was it class 1, 2 and 3? Looks like 20 years is the magic number. But, the rounds don't get trashed. http://www.army-technology.com/featu...ition-4583575/ |
MOAB story
|
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:27:05 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:20:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/16/2017 10:50 AM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:37:05 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote: Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want not. It may be a dumb plan but it is how the military operates. This comes down to chemistry more than politics. Explosives definitely have a shelf life and beyond that they become unreliable. They may just be less effective but they can also become more sensitive and that is a worse problem. The exudate that oozes out of shells loaded with TNT can be very dangerous. Military explosives generally have longer shelf lives than commercial explosives but that is simply more than a few years out to 20 or so. You keep saying that and I don't disagree with you when it comes to cheap, WWII era ordnance or .45 rounds that you apparently had some experience in disposing of in 1965. But, what makes you think or what evidence do you have that today, 52 years later (half a century) that the same policy exists for $15M a pop weapons? Because TNT is still TNT? I did a lot of reading on this but I can't find anything like the CG "282" manual online that defined storage and classification of ordinance. I did see references to explosives like Semtex and RDX saying they were only at their prime for 10 years. (by a company selling a replacement) I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the 21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too so it is likely to be chucked. This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are talking about real money. (Proxmire) Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand? How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes) Read the link I posted about MOAB costs. Washington Post, Times, and even Harry got it all wrong. |
MOAB story
On 4/16/2017 5:27 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:20:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/16/2017 10:50 AM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:37:05 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote: Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want not. It may be a dumb plan but it is how the military operates. This comes down to chemistry more than politics. Explosives definitely have a shelf life and beyond that they become unreliable. They may just be less effective but they can also become more sensitive and that is a worse problem. The exudate that oozes out of shells loaded with TNT can be very dangerous. Military explosives generally have longer shelf lives than commercial explosives but that is simply more than a few years out to 20 or so. You keep saying that and I don't disagree with you when it comes to cheap, WWII era ordnance or .45 rounds that you apparently had some experience in disposing of in 1965. But, what makes you think or what evidence do you have that today, 52 years later (half a century) that the same policy exists for $15M a pop weapons? Because TNT is still TNT? I did a lot of reading on this but I can't find anything like the CG "282" manual online that defined storage and classification of ordinance. I did see references to explosives like Semtex and RDX saying they were only at their prime for 10 years. (by a company selling a replacement) I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the 21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too so it is likely to be chucked. This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are talking about real money. (Proxmire) Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand? How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes) Heh. And they call me Luddite. :-) I can give you some first hand, much more contemporary examples of what it's like to be under contract directly with the DoD or as a second tier sub to major DoD contractors, but it would take a book and bore the hell out of anyone. Let's just say that they are not as free spending as you might like to believe and there are reasons for it. I am not saying you are wrong Greg. It's just that things have changed over the years. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:33:44 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:39:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/16/2017 1:02 PM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:24:06 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:20:57 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: I think the solution lies with the muslim world. We're not getting the kind of help or leadership from any of the Muslim countries that we need. === You're absolutely right about that. Pakistan is arguably one of the more advanced Muslim countries and they're still stoning people to death for blasphemy. So what? Why do we care what they do in their own country? There are plenty of western europeans who think we are barbarians too. I have to chuckle sometimes Greg but your comment (above) is why your Libertarian Party candidates will never stand a chance of being POTUS. Most people are horrified to see a woman being buried up to her neck in dirt and then stoned to death by her community ... often including her husband ... for suspicion of having an adulterous affair or making a blasphemous statement of Islam. Even Rand Paul, technically a Republican but with very strong Libertarian views, has a softer heart than that. I am as horrified as I am when the savages in Africa do similar things to their people but I would not risk my kid's life to stop them ... and evidently that view is shared by most Americans vis a vis Africa. 3d world people have different values and bombing them does not seem to change that. I would not be at all against taking action in Africa similar to what we are doing in Syria. And, in some cases I would be agreeable to inserting troops - SEALs or whatever. Leaving the problems to the UN 'peacekeepers' seems to be causing even more trouble. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:38:03 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 11:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Poco Deplorevole wrote: On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:24:06 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:20:57 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: I think the solution lies with the muslim world. We're not getting the kind of help or leadership from any of the Muslim countries that we need. === You're absolutely right about that. Pakistan is arguably one of the more advanced Muslim countries and they're still stoning people to death for blasphemy. So what? Why do we care what they do in their own country? There are plenty of western europeans who think we are barbarians too. I can't believe you said that. Why? For the same reason you'd get ****ed if the guy across the street from you was kicking the **** out of his dog! If it was the guy on my street I would be upset but I am not going to Korea and tell a guy he can't eat his dog. Different culture, different rules. Personally I don't have a problem with a Korean eating dog meat. I think it's possible to kill a dog 'humanely', just as it is to kill a pig or steer. It's 'inhumane' treatment I'm talking about. Raping and genitally mutilating 12- year-old girls is inhumane, especially when they've been kidnapped by the hundreds in the first place. It is not our place to tell people half way around the world how they treat their dogs or their people when that has been their culture since the fall of Rome. I guess we'll just disagree. The use of chemical weapons by anyone should be stopped. |
MOAB story
On 4/16/2017 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 11:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Poco Deplorevole wrote: On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:24:06 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:20:57 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: I think the solution lies with the muslim world. We're not getting the kind of help or leadership from any of the Muslim countries that we need. === You're absolutely right about that. Pakistan is arguably one of the more advanced Muslim countries and they're still stoning people to death for blasphemy. So what? Why do we care what they do in their own country? There are plenty of western europeans who think we are barbarians too. I can't believe you said that. Why? For the same reason you'd get ****ed if the guy across the street from you was kicking the **** out of his dog! If it was the guy on my street I would be upset but I am not going to Korea and tell a guy he can't eat his dog. Different culture, different rules. It is not our place to tell people half way around the world how they treat their dogs or their people when that has been their culture since the fall of Rome. I guess none of this will ever be straightened out until the aliens from outer space return to see how their pollination has worked out on earth. They'll take over the reigns and make everything just hunky dory. |
MOAB story
|
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:51:26 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:45 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:44:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole wrote: why we have any interest in the middle east at all. It certainly is not oil. Maybe it's just simple humanitarianism. There are people being ****ed over all over the planet and we really do not care in most places. That's true. But that's not to say we shouldn't do what we can where we can. I'd love to see us doing more to punish the assholes in Africa doing their damndest to rape, plunder and pillage everything they can, including girls even younger than those Harry likes. Perhaps we take on those who may present a bigger threat. Of course, if you believe there are no threats out there, then that is a meaningless point also. How many kids would you send to Somalia? Congo? Yeah, I thought so. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:58:18 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote: while the MOAP wipes out everything on the surface within a mile radius Doesn't seem like a cave buster to me and that is what the CNN military guy said. As for "sealing the entrance" even a silly rabbit knows you should have two holes into a burrow. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:09:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/16/2017 4:34 PM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:44:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole wrote: why we have any interest in the middle east at all. It certainly is not oil. Maybe it's just simple humanitarianism. There are people being ****ed over all over the planet and we really do not care in most places. In terms of percent of GNP, Sweden leads the list for foreign humanitarian aid by government at just under 1 percent of GNP. In terms of GNI (whatever that is) Turkey actually is on top. The USA government direct humanitarian aid by GNP is something like number 20 on the list. However, when you add in private and corporate donations, the USA dwarfs all other nations in total humanitarian aid at about 6.4 billion. Surprisingly, Turkey is next at $3.2 billion, then the UK at $2.8 billion. (2015 numbers) I guess it depends on who you say doesn't care. If the DoD budget is actually Humanitarian aid as has been posed here, we win ... by a long shot. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:36:04 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote: That is even sillier in this context than the one up thread a bit. If we were just interested in humanitarian causes, we would be bombing Afghanistan with food, books and satellite connected PCs. That would be a winning strategy in N Korea too. You're assuming ISIS and Kim give a rat's ass about their people. ISIS influence could be blunted with some education and Kim would not last a week if his people actually understood the lie. |
MOAB story
|
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:36:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: It was pointed out by a military guy today on the talking head shows that if we were really targeting caves, we should have used the MOP, not the MOAB. The MOAB did the job according to those inspecting the area. Hmmm the DoD sources are saying the DoD did a good job, whodathunkit. I am sure there is a big crater and anyone outside the cave was killed but we could have done that with a stick of cluster bombs. That just wouldn't have been news when they needed some news. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:42:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/16/2017 4:45 PM, wrote: That is even sillier in this context than the one up thread a bit. If we were just interested in humanitarian causes, we would be bombing Afghanistan with food, books and satellite connected PCs. That would be a winning strategy in N Korea too. The vast majority of the NK population wouldn't know what the PC's were, let alone know how to use them. I guess you have not seen the stories about the people who are spreading cheap PCs among 3d world people. The kids pick it up and start using it right away with minimal training. http://one.laptop.org/ |
MOAB story
|
MOAB story
On 4/16/2017 6:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:42:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/16/2017 4:45 PM, wrote: That is even sillier in this context than the one up thread a bit. If we were just interested in humanitarian causes, we would be bombing Afghanistan with food, books and satellite connected PCs. That would be a winning strategy in N Korea too. The vast majority of the NK population wouldn't know what the PC's were, let alone know how to use them. I guess you have not seen the stories about the people who are spreading cheap PCs among 3d world people. The kids pick it up and start using it right away with minimal training. http://one.laptop.org/ In North Korea? Most places there don't even have electricity to charge the batteries. Check out the night time satellite images. South Korea is lit up like a Christmas tree, right up to the border where it suddenly goes pitch black everywhere. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:45:33 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:06:41 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:55:45 -0400, Poco Deplorevole wrote: Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want not. I'm thinking his 'old stuff' was *accidentally* left to begin 'oozing'. The Army, at least the units I was in, would use the older ammo for training as opposed to dumping it in the sea. I can't believe the Coast Guard would purposely let ammo get so old it began 'oozing' unless someone f'ed up big time. At least you admit ammo has a shelf life. I already said the 3 classes are ready service, training and trash. We had limited ability to actually shoot live ammo and it was seldom new when we got it anyway so disposal was pretty common. You also pointed out why it was pretty much free to drop this bomb. I doubt they "train" with an 18,000 bomb. What was your typical cycle time on your large caliber rounds (105-155 etc)? How long was it class 1, 2 and 3? Looks like 20 years is the magic number. But, the rounds don't get trashed. http://www.army-technology.com/featu...ition-4583575/ Thanks for finding that and reiterating the 20 year shelf life I stated but it still said one particular obsolete shell was taken out of service and rebuilt with a different payload for training. At a certain point trashed vs taken apart and sold for the scrap price of the metal is pretty much the same thing. The explosive is still deactivated and destroyed. In the case of a bomb that is nothing but a big metal tube stuffed with explosive, there is not a lot of recycling going on. There is a ton and a half of steel in that bomb (minus the guidance pack) at $400 a ton, the scrap value is $600. OK $16 million (or $171,000) in, $600 out, assuming there is no cost involved in the recycling process (and we know that is not true). It would be far cheaper to just throw them over the side in deep water, hence what we did. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:47:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/16/2017 5:16 PM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:15:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Why would we send our kids into a war we had no plans of winning? Ask Truman and LBJ. Both Bushs learned the lessons of Vietnam. Once a decision was made to wage a war, it was done so in a manner to win. Harry will yak about third rate armies, but a Russian tank is a tank regardless and Saddam had a bunch of them. Both excursions into Iraq weren't even close in terms of "not winning". The problem in Iraq is we did not know what a win looked like. We beat the army and hanged Saddam but nobody asked "what's next"? Yes, yes, yes Greg. That point has been made a gazillion times. The issue and point was that when allowed to "win" a battle or war the US military can do an outstanding job. What came after was not (and is not) the job of the military. We did an outstanding job winning battles in Vietnam and how did that work out? I have no doubt we have the best trained, best equipped and most motivated military in the world, We will win any extended battle we get in but without the political will to win the war and a plan for the peace, we should just stay home. We have had that problem since we nuked Japan and we should solve that problem before we fight again. Simply projecting power into a conflict that we are not prepared to win is simply stupid. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:48:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote: I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the 21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too so it is likely to be chucked. This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are talking about real money. (Proxmire) Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand? How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes) Read the link I posted about MOAB costs. Washington Post, Times, and even Harry got it all wrong. This is what I have gotten out of several articles on the bomb although the numbers wiggle around a few percent but not enough to matter. The actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the 21 bombs they built. It all depends on if you want the incremental cost of one more bomb at $170k or if you take the total program cost and divide it by the number built to date. I paid for the total program and so did you. It is like saying it only costs a dime to make a pill and ignoring the development, testing, regulatory, insurance and distribution cost. |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:54:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Heh. And they call me Luddite. :-) I can give you some first hand, much more contemporary examples of what it's like to be under contract directly with the DoD or as a second tier sub to major DoD contractors, but it would take a book and bore the hell out of anyone. Let's just say that they are not as free spending as you might like to believe and there are reasons for it. I am not saying you are wrong Greg. It's just that things have changed over the years. Nobody ever said they treat small contractors fairly. Too bad you weren't Raytheon but that still does not excuse the inefficiency of the whole appropriation, development, deployment and scrapping process. How many times did they change the specs on you and expect you to eat the cost? Did you? |
MOAB story
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:55:49 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote: I would not be at all against taking action in Africa similar to what we are doing in Syria. And, in some cases I would be agreeable to inserting troops - SEALs or whatever. Leaving the problems to the UN 'peacekeepers' seems to be causing even more trouble. You want another Somalia huh? We got our ass handed to us there and we had no interest in going back. There is no quick SEAL strike that will do anything. It will only encourage a larger conflict and pretty soon you will be in another un winnable quagmire. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com