Most needed in US NAVY - Page 16

Anon · 12-25-2005, 20:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ballguy

Could one not claim that we don't "need" a military at all?

Not if one wished to have self-determination at a national or personal level, no.

**TopHatter** · 12-25-2005, 20:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ballguy

Because I have nothing better to do.

Gotcha

Gun Grape · 12-31-2005, 16:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Finally, Defcon, i would point out that Gun Grape is a real life no-shiit Artillery expert, with years of hands on experience on all manner of artillery systems. Do not make the mistake of thinking you're talking to a novice. He's forgotten more about artillery and FO procedures and capabilities than you'll ever learn in your entire life unless you follow in HIS footsteps. I consider myself to be very well informed when it comes to these systems, and i also have several years of hands on experience on both mortar systems and am(or was) fully proficient in most FO procedures, but between the two of us i'd definitely say he knows more about this stuff than me. Probably a lot more.

Remember that when you talk to GG about big guns, you are talking to an expert.

Well Thanks Snipe

The feelings mutual (except when we disagree)

Of course looking at the date you posted this, one could infer that you were
1. Drunk out of your mind
2. Trying to spread a little Christmas Cheer

or my guess, BOTH

**TopHatter** · 12-31-2005, 17:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Well Thanks Snipe

The feelings mutual (except when we disagree)

Of course looking at the date you posted this, one could infer that you were
1. Drunk out of your mind
2. Trying to spread a little Christmas Cheer

or my guess, BOTH

I'm going for "Speaking the truth whilst drunk out of his mind."

Anon · 01-03-2006, 17:08 PM

I don't drink.

Snipe is a pot-head.

At any rate, i did mean what i said about the gunny.

rickusn · 01-07-2006, 11:55 AM

Sniper:

"The USAF is just a lot better about spending it's money WISELY than the USN is."

Ya right.

$46 Billion spent and 56 aircraft delivered.

The USAF is very gooooood at PR.

The USAF redesignated the F-22 to the F/A-22 in 2002 to save the program from being canceled buy touting its virtually non-existent capabilities in the attack role.

The USAF just recently dropped the "A" from the F/A designation because the cost for "real" attack capabilitity was $50m extra per aircraft and rising. Again saving the program from termination.

This program all by itself makes the entire Navy budget look like the bargain it really is.

And makes the DDX program look grossly underfunded which it has been and remains.

The USAF is amazing when it comes to PR but its catching up with them. Look at the cost of the C-17 if you want to look closer at how much money the USAF spends.

In the next decade look for the USN to drop to 500 combat aircraft at most including the ANG and AFReserve.

Bash the USN all you want but if you did any research at all you would be bashing someone else.

Anon · 01-10-2006, 18:10 PM

I've done plenty of research, and i stand by my statement.

The USAF is FAR more efficient in spending it's money than the USN, and it ain't even close.

The USN's procurement history is a despicable outrage.

Tokyo Drifter · 11-06-2006, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giggs88

Well, there was this "controversy" a while ago whether USMC Force Recon should join SOCOM or not. I wanted to know what Force Recon did that SEALs didn't do, because bringing in another unit that did the same thing would be completely pointless.

So, I searched on google: "What is the difference between Force Recon and SEALs?"

And found this:
http://www.specialoperations.com/Foc...ences/Navy.htm

nice link there

rickusn · 11-06-2006, 20:03 PM

"I've done plenty of research, and i stand by my statement.

The USAF is FAR more efficient in spending it's money than the USN, and it ain't even close.

The USN's procurement history is a despicable outrage."

Not only are full of ****.

Your a liar.

zraver · 11-06-2006, 21:14 PM

I vote all of thee above

urmomma158 · 11-06-2006, 23:00 PM

Wtf all the above

i voted Virginia clas submarines because we seriously need those against those effin SSK's.

Just like rickusn says:there are only 2 kinds of ships submarines and targets and a battleship is nothin but a target I'd rather buy more burkes than an Iowa.

Who can say no to this bad boy:

Anon · 11-07-2006, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickusn

"I've done plenty of research, and i stand by my statement.

The USAF is FAR more efficient in spending it's money than the USN, and it ain't even close.

The USN's procurement history is a despicable outrage."

Not only are full of ****.

Your a liar.

Whoooo....sticks and stones.

gunnut · 11-07-2006, 15:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokyo Drifter

nice link there

I spoke to a FR fellow (sniper, infact) and I asked him the same question. This might be out of interservice rivalry or friendly jab at the SEAL guys, but he told me the biggest difference between Marine Force Recon and Navy SEAL is that the SEAL guys aren't too good when they're too far from water.

starsiege · 11-07-2006, 15:57 PM

heh!!?? from the poll it seems like the US navy needs more iowa class battleships! ROLFMAO!

and here i was thinking it needs more littoral combat ships.lol!

urmomma158 · 11-07-2006, 16:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starsiege

heh!!?? from the poll it seems like the US navy needs more iowa class battleships! ROLFMAO!

and here i was thinking it needs more littoral combat ships.lol!

I know it cracked me up too lol those people are speaking out of nostalgia and not what is actually needed.What we really need are those Virginia SSN's for use against those SSk's. Right now countries such as Iran are deploying sophisticated SSK's such as the Gotland and New SSN classes are coming out that are even quieter than the LA class which is why we need the Virginia.Not to mention we also need a whole bunch of other ASW gear such as Seatalon UUV's,AN AQS 22 variable depth dippping sonars,
SH 60 r's,Surtass LFA's and the like.LoL the Blue water navy is important but I seriously don't see a credible blue water threat anytime soon and the Virginia is versatile enough for both blue and brown water.

LCS is great but we should pay a little more attention to those Virginia's.

View Poll Results: What does the US NAVY need most?
Iowa Class Battleships	39	24.68%
Virginia Class Nuclear Attack Submarines	34	21.52%
Amphibious Assault Ships	16	10.13%
Aerligh Burk Class Destroyers	10	6.33%
Nimitz Class Carriers	30	18.99%
Littoral Combat Ships	29	18.35%
Voters: 158. You may not vote on this poll

11-06-2006, 23:00 PM	#236 (permalink)
urmomma158 the real plastic *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 03-05-06 Location: NJ Turnpike Posts: 936 Country:	Wtf all the above i voted Virginia clas submarines because we seriously need those against those effin SSK's. Just like rickusn says:there are only 2 kinds of ships submarines and targets and a battleship is nothin but a target I'd rather buy more burkes than an Iowa. Who can say no to this bad boy: __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
World Navies in Review	rickusn	Naval Forces	7	06-14-2007 23:51 PM
UK Drawdown?	rickusn	Naval Forces	19	05-03-2007 11:22 AM
BMD Article	rickusn	Naval Forces	6	02-05-2007 23:04 PM
Royal Navy ASW, MW,careers, etc	rickusn	Naval Forces	8	12-04-2006 15:12 PM
PLAN Analysis	rickusn	Naval Forces	9	06-12-2006 15:05 PM

01-03-2006, 17:08 PM	#230 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 1	I don't drink. Snipe is a pot-head. At any rate, i did mean what i said about the gunny.

01-07-2006, 11:55 AM	#231 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	Sniper: "The USAF is just a lot better about spending it's money WISELY than the USN is." Ya right. $46 Billion spent and 56 aircraft delivered. The USAF is very gooooood at PR. The USAF redesignated the F-22 to the F/A-22 in 2002 to save the program from being canceled buy touting its virtually non-existent capabilities in the attack role. The USAF just recently dropped the "A" from the F/A designation because the cost for "real" attack capabilitity was $50m extra per aircraft and rising. Again saving the program from termination. This program all by itself makes the entire Navy budget look like the bargain it really is. And makes the DDX program look grossly underfunded which it has been and remains. The USAF is amazing when it comes to PR but its catching up with them. Look at the cost of the C-17 if you want to look closer at how much money the USAF spends. In the next decade look for the USN to drop to 500 combat aircraft at most including the ANG and AFReserve. Bash the USN all you want but if you did any research at all you would be bashing someone else.

01-10-2006, 18:10 PM	#232 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 1	I've done plenty of research, and i stand by my statement. The USAF is FAR more efficient in spending it's money than the USN, and it ain't even close. The USN's procurement history is a despicable outrage.

11-06-2006, 20:03 PM	#234 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	"I've done plenty of research, and i stand by my statement. The USAF is FAR more efficient in spending it's money than the USN, and it ain't even close. The USN's procurement history is a despicable outrage." Not only are full of ****. Your a liar.

11-06-2006, 21:14 PM	#235 (permalink)
zraver Contrary by nature. *Military Professional* Join Date: 10-22-06 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,509 Country:	I vote all of thee above

11-07-2006, 15:57 PM	#239 (permalink)
starsiege Banished Join Date: 07-05-06 Posts: 521	heh!!?? from the poll it seems like the US navy needs more iowa class battleships! ROLFMAO! and here i was thinking it needs more littoral combat ships.lol!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)