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.