More problems for the Navy...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:31:02 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:40:55 -0400, hk wrote:

I'd like to know how a ship is supposed to avoid being hit by a
wave-hopping, supersonic missile "steered" by a couple of guys via a
video camera on the weapon and a laptop computer. That's where anti-ship
missile technology is headed.

You mostly have to shoot them down. Spitfires chased the first guided
missiles, V-1's during WWII. They had to be high and dive on the
missiles as they were slightly faster. You can get a hand aimed 95 lb
20mm cannon with 1000RPM and 3300 ft/sec MV. You could put a hundred
of them just below the flight deck edges on a carrier. Take care of
the speedboats, at least. And any ship with hundreds of marines could
man a bunch of machine guns. They have some fifties now, but a state
of the art 20mm would be nice, and not very expensive.
You can jam a control radio link, and they can home on the jammer.
Chaff has been known to work against a radar only missile. missiles
however, could have both radar and infrared homing. Defence gets
harder and harder.

Casady

And that's only the stuff we know about.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Aug 14, 6:09*pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. *No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

* * * * * John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

More problems for the Navy...
 

and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission. your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:

On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Aug 14, 6:29*pm, Bullschitter wrote:
and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission.. your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. *No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

* * * * * John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Just repeating what John called you (Tom).

More problems for the Navy...
 

hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:04:32 -0400, hk wrote:

I subscribe to Jane's. :)

You do not.


Yeah, I do. Comped. Long, long story, the gist of which is that I used
to handle the marketing and PR for a now-defunct pro-military
entanglement "diplomacy" publication, and when the pub folded (long
after my involvement with it), the senior editor, a buddy, hopped to the
Jane's group, and I got a comp. After some years, at my request, he
switched it to an electronic subscription. I still look at it once it a
while.

Harry,
I wonder why people don't believe your stories? This senior editor who
gives you a free subscription to Jane's for all these years, reminds of
when you elevated a Social Worker to a Dr. Dr. just so you could use her
as your expert witness to diagnose the mental illnesses of regulars in
rec.boats. No one believes this anymore than the Dr. Dr. story.

More problems for the Navy...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:04:32 -0400, hk wrote:

I subscribe to Jane's. :)

You do not.

Sure it is a comp from all of Harry's work for a diplomatic publication.
They are very common for those in the inner circle of world affairs.

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Aug 14, 6:29*pm, Bullschitter wrote:
and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission.. your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. *No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

* * * * * John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

I give up with the ever changing handles you, Tom, Scotty and Reggie
have. Try to keep a single handle so you are not accused of being
married to a bull****ter.

More problems for the Navy...
 

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:
and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission. your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:
Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.
Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **
John H
Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

I give up with the ever changing handles you, Tom, Scotty and Reggie
have. Try to keep a single handle so you are not accused of being
married to a bull****ter.

What is wrong with me using my official titles, bestowed upon me based
upon my diplomatic work with world leaders?

More problems for the Navy...
 

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:
and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission. your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:
Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.
Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **
John H
Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

I give up with the ever changing handles you, Tom, Scotty and Reggie
have. Try to keep a single handle so you are not accused of being
married to a bull****ter.


Why bother with crap posters who keep changing their handles?

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Aug 14, 7:03*pm, "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of
Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. "
wrote:
JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:
and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission. your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:
Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. *No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.
Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **
* * * * * John H
Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

I give up with the ever changing handles you, Tom, Scotty *and Reggie
have. *Try to keep a single handle so you are not accused of being
married to a bull****ter.

What is wrong with me using my official titles, bestowed upon me based
upon my diplomatic work with world leaders?

Nothing. Add Bull****ter and Snark to your certifications and you
will be complete.

More problems for the Navy...
 

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 7:03 pm, "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of
Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. "
wrote:
JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:
and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission. your a
Putz.
JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:
Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.
Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **
John H
Tom's wife is a bull****ter?
I give up with the ever changing handles you, Tom, Scotty and Reggie
have. Try to keep a single handle so you are not accused of being
married to a bull****ter.
What is wrong with me using my official titles, bestowed upon me based
upon my diplomatic work with world leaders?

Nothing. Add Bull****ter and Snark to your certifications and you
will be complete.


Reggie is a turd, no matter how he describes himself. He's also the
biggest coward in the history of rec.boats.

More problems for the Navy...
 

"JimH" wrote in message
...
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:
and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission.
your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter

wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a
Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Just repeating what John called you (Tom).

=========================================

Try reading the header.

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Aug 14, 7:27*pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:



and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission.
your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter

wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a
Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Why b Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Just repeating what John called you (Tom).

=========================================

Try reading the header.

With all the folks here using multiple handles lately..........why
bother?

BTW: Who's wife is a bull****ter?

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:27:39 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:
and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission.
your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter

wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a
Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Just repeating what John called you (Tom).

=========================================

Try reading the header.


Read? Actually read something? Do you have any idea whose behavior you're
trying to change?
--
** Good Day! **

John H

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:08:23 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

Your barge would hold a lot more explosives, and make a much more colorful
boom. Especially if you were on it.

Wow... talk about a **** storm!

Actually I found Harry's post offensive.

Thank you, I agree.

More problems for the Navy...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I subscribe to Jane's. :)



No wonder you are confused.

Eisboch


Right...it's much easier to accept the bs poured out by the U.S. DoD and
its suppliers.

Sorry Harry. The contracts issued by the DoD to it's suppliers are much
more indicative to the state of the art than what you read in the sanitized,
civilian orientated "Jane's".

Eisboch

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Aug 14, 8:01*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:08:23 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

Your barge would hold a lot more explosives, and make a much more colorful
boom. Especially if you were on it.

Wow... talk about a **** storm!

Actually I found Harry's post offensive.

Thank you, I agree.

NP.

More problems for the Navy...
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:08:23 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

Your barge would hold a lot more explosives, and make a much more colorful
boom. Especially if you were on it.
Wow... talk about a **** storm!
Actually I found Harry's post offensive.

Thank you, I agree.



Good. It was intended to be as offensive to you as you typically are to
me. Tit for tat. Or, in the vernacular...go foch yourself.

More problems for the Navy...
 

"JimH" wrote in message
...
On Aug 14, 7:27 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:



and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a
ducission.
your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter

wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a
Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Why b Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Just repeating what John called you (Tom).

=========================================

Try reading the header.

With all the folks here using multiple handles lately..........why
bother?

BTW: Who's wife is a bull****ter?
===================================

The point is you accuse someone that doesn't deserve it.

More problems for the Navy...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I subscribe to Jane's. :)


No wonder you are confused.

Eisboch

Right...it's much easier to accept the bs poured out by the U.S. DoD and
its suppliers.

Sorry Harry. The contracts issued by the DoD to it's suppliers are much
more indicative to the state of the art than what you read in the sanitized,
civilian orientated "Jane's".

Eisboch





I'm sorry, Richard, but I simply do not believe anything the military
establishment claims or says in procurement or in a number of other
areas. Note to the simpleminded: I am not commenting on the veracity of
individual military personnel.

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:17:49 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

On Aug 14, 6:09*pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. *No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

* * * * * John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Um...excuse me?

More problems for the Navy...
 

D.Duck wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...
On Aug 14, 7:27 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:



and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a
ducission.
your a
Putz.
JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter

wrote:
Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a
Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.
Why b Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **
John H
Tom's wife is a bull****ter?
Just repeating what John called you (Tom).

=========================================

Try reading the header.

With all the folks here using multiple handles lately..........why
bother?

BTW: Who's wife is a bull****ter?
===================================

The point is you accuse someone that doesn't deserve it.




Yawn. The point is, if posters here were required to post with their
real names or initials, this would be a far better newsgroup. Most of
the Seven Little Schitts wouldn't be posting here at all, and probably
neither would ducks.

More problems for the Navy...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:21:04 -0400, hk wrote:

More properly: carriers are becoming increasingly more vulnerable as
missile technology advances.

Fixed bases have been vulnerable for years.

So what is a brilliant arm chair naval strategist like yourself
supposed to do ?



Find ways other than warfare to resolve differences. You know, like Bush
should have done with Iraq.


"Next time your found, with your chin on the ground
There a lot to be learned, so look around

Just what makes that little old ant
Think he'll move that rubber tree plant
Anyone knows an ant, can't
Move a rubber tree plant

But he's got high hopes, he's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie, in the sky hopes

So any time your gettin' low
'stead of lettin' go
Just remember that ant
Oops there goes another rubber tree plant."Eisboch

More problems for the Navy...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I subscribe to Jane's. :)


No wonder you are confused.

Eisboch

Right...it's much easier to accept the bs poured out by the U.S. DoD and
its suppliers.

Sorry Harry. The contracts issued by the DoD to it's suppliers are much
more indicative to the state of the art than what you read in the
sanitized, civilian orientated "Jane's".

Eisboch





I'm sorry, Richard, but I simply do not believe anything the military
establishment claims or says in procurement or in a number of other areas.
Note to the simpleminded: I am not commenting on the veracity of
individual military personnel.


There's some interesting spin.

Who makes up the establishment? Individuals?

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:17:49 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

On Aug 14, 6:09*pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. *No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

* * * * * John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Um...excuse me?

Pay no attention. Something confused Jimh.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:33:29 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:04:32 -0400, hk wrote:

I subscribe to Jane's. :)

You do not.


Yeah, I do. Comped. Long, long story, the gist of which is that I used
to handle the marketing and PR for a now-defunct pro-military
entanglement "diplomacy" publication, and when the pub folded (long
after my involvement with it), the senior editor, a buddy, hopped to the
Jane's group, and I got a comp. After some years, at my request, he
switched it to an electronic subscription. I still look at it once it a
while.

Of course - a comped subscription to Jane's.

What was I thinking?

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:43:23 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:49:48 -0400, hk wrote:

Carriers are not invulnerable but neither are fixed bases, and fixed
bases are not available in many parts of the world.



Nobody is claiming that fixed bases are invulnerable.

Let me try and summarize your main points:

- Carriers are worthless because they are vulnerable.

- Fixed bases are more worthless.

That's why you need to send the Marines.

Don't plan - improvise. :)

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Aug 14, 8:05*pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 7:27 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:

"JimH" wrote in message

....
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:

and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a
ducission.
your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter

wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a
Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Why b Definitely got your handle right.

--
** Good Day! **

John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Just repeating what John called you (Tom).

=========================================

Try reading the header.

With all the folks here using multiple handles lately..........why
bother?

BTW: *Who's wife is a bull****ter?
===================================

The point is you accuse someone that doesn't deserve it.

So who is it?

More problems for the Navy...
 

"JimH" wrote in message
...
On Aug 14, 8:05 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 7:27 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:

"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:

and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a
ducission.
your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter

wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a
Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Why b Definitely got your handle right.

--
** Good Day! **

John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Just repeating what John called you (Tom).

=========================================

Try reading the header.

With all the folks here using multiple handles lately..........why
bother?

BTW: Who's wife is a bull****ter?
===================================

The point is you accuse someone that doesn't deserve it.

So who is it?
========================

It ain't SWS.

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:03:48 -0400, hk wrote:

Your barge would hold a lot more explosives, and make a much more colorful
boom. Especially if you were on it.
Wow... talk about a **** storm!
Actually I found Harry's post offensive.

Thank you, I agree.



Good. It was intended to be as offensive to you as you typically are to
me. Tit for tat. Or, in the vernacular...go foch yourself.

WAFA

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Aug 14, 8:10*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:43:23 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:49:48 -0400, hk wrote:

Carriers are not invulnerable but neither are fixed bases, and fixed
bases are not available in many parts of the world.

Nobody is claiming that fixed bases are invulnerable.

Let me try and summarize your main points:

- Carriers are worthless because they are vulnerable.

- Fixed bases are more worthless.

That's why you need to send the Marines.

Don't plan - improvise. *:)

I probably told this one before. But a gaggle of reporters had a
Marine general just after the invasion of Iraq.. One of the little
trolls asked the General "what do the marines do?". The General
answered quickly and said. "We break things". "The marines break
things so the enemy can't use them any more, then the Army comes in
and holds the ground". I got a kick out of that, I don't think the
reporter did though...;)

More problems for the Navy...
 

D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I subscribe to Jane's. :)

No wonder you are confused.

Eisboch
Right...it's much easier to accept the bs poured out by the U.S. DoD and
its suppliers.
Sorry Harry. The contracts issued by the DoD to it's suppliers are much
more indicative to the state of the art than what you read in the
sanitized, civilian orientated "Jane's".

Eisboch




I'm sorry, Richard, but I simply do not believe anything the military
establishment claims or says in procurement or in a number of other areas.
Note to the simpleminded: I am not commenting on the veracity of
individual military personnel.


There's some interesting spin.

Who makes up the establishment? Individuals?





The military establishment is responsible for the Gulag in Cuba and the
hellhole prisons in Iraq where prisoners are tortured. I blame the
officer corps establishment for that, not the young enlistees who are
told what to do.

More problems for the Navy...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:33:29 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:04:32 -0400, hk wrote:

I subscribe to Jane's. :)
You do not.

Yeah, I do. Comped. Long, long story, the gist of which is that I used
to handle the marketing and PR for a now-defunct pro-military
entanglement "diplomacy" publication, and when the pub folded (long
after my involvement with it), the senior editor, a buddy, hopped to the
Jane's group, and I got a comp. After some years, at my request, he
switched it to an electronic subscription. I still look at it once it a
while.

Of course - a comped subscription to Jane's.

What was I thinking?


You weren't.

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:08:00 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:21:04 -0400, hk wrote:

More properly: carriers are becoming increasingly more vulnerable as
missile technology advances.

Fixed bases have been vulnerable for years.

So what is a brilliant arm chair naval strategist like yourself
supposed to do ?



Find ways other than warfare to resolve differences. You know, like Bush
should have done with Iraq.

"Next time your found, with your chin on the ground
There a lot to be learned, so look around

Just what makes that little old ant
Think he'll move that rubber tree plant
Anyone knows an ant, can't
Move a rubber tree plant

But he's got high hopes, he's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie, in the sky hopes

So any time your gettin' low
'stead of lettin' go
Just remember that ant
Oops there goes another rubber tree plant."Eisboch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHZpl...eature=related

More problems for the Navy...
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:04:32 -0400, hk wrote:

What I suspect will happen is that someday some assholes will launch one
of these new missiles at one of our capital ships, hit it, and sink it,
and *then* we'll have the sort of "missile crisis" that results some
years later in a new ship defense system. Defense systems tend to be
reactive.

We already had one of these incidents in 1987 with the Iraqis and the
USS Starke.
This wasn't really a high tech missile either, it was the Exocet, a
fairly crude subsonic cruise missile that managed 2 out of 2 hits on
the ship.



Good grief, man. That was in 1987 ..... 21 years ago. Technology has
changed a bit since then.

In addition, the main defensive weapon of its day ... the Phalanx close in
(last resort) system wasn't even turned on.

You also have to remember... small ships like the Starke are considered to
be expendable compared to an aircraft carrier.

Eisboch

More problems for the Navy...
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:03:48 -0400, hk wrote:

Your barge would hold a lot more explosives, and make a much more colorful
boom. Especially if you were on it.
Wow... talk about a **** storm!
Actually I found Harry's post offensive.
Thank you, I agree.


Good. It was intended to be as offensive to you as you typically are to
me. Tit for tat. Or, in the vernacular...go foch yourself.

WAFA


Stop w'hining.

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Aug 14, 8:14*pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 8:05 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:



"JimH" wrote in message

....
On Aug 14, 7:27 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:

"JimH" wrote in message

....
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:

and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a
ducission.
your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter

wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a
Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Why b Definitely got your handle right.

--
** Good Day! **

John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Just repeating what John called you (Tom).

=========================================

Try reading the header.

With all the folks here using multiple handles lately..........why
bother?

BTW: Who's wife is a bull****ter?
===================================

The point is you accuse someone that doesn't deserve it.

So who is it?
========================

It ain't SWS.

So who is it?

More problems for the Navy...
 

"JimH" wrote in message
...
On Aug 14, 8:14 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 8:05 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:



"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 7:27 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:

"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:

and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a
ducission.
your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter

wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for
a
Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Why b Definitely got your handle right.

--
** Good Day! **

John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Just repeating what John called you (Tom).

=========================================

Try reading the header.

With all the folks here using multiple handles lately..........why
bother?

BTW: Who's wife is a bull****ter?
===================================

The point is you accuse someone that doesn't deserve it.

So who is it?
========================

It ain't SWS.

So who is it?

I don't care to do anymore research other than it's obvious who it isn't.

More problems for the Navy...
 

wrote in message
...

When they asked (Zumwalt?) how long our aircraft carriers would last
in a real war he said "a couple days".

Another tidbit of ancient history. Zumwalt was Chief of Naval Operations
for a while when *I* was on active service .... and that ended 31 years ago.

BTW .... Uncle Z is considered by many (me included) to be one of the worst
things that ever happened to the US Navy.

Eisboch