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