Military industrial complex is good business....

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

14 years ago

http://www.militaryeducation.org/military-equipment/
:-&

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your CigarBid Forums forum account or Register a new forum account

engletl
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

Freedom has it's price

Mathen
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

I'm not going to doubt the accuracy of the numbers, but I believe this falls into the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" category. Not that those aren't real numbers, but that they certainly don't tell the whole picture. For example: $830k for a missile is less than the life insurance pay out would be if we lost five soldiers trying to take the same objective. A billion dollars for a B-2? How many are there and how long are they expected to fly? You've got to know that to calculate the return on investment. I know, for example, that the B-2 fleet is awfully small. Had we built the number the Air Force had originally asked for, the price per unit would have been a fraction of that. I'm not an expert on all things Air Force, so I'll talk about the Army which due to my job, I'm much more familiar with.

Army aviation has no plans, period, of getting a new model helicopter until at least 2025... Maybe farther out than that too. At that time, the chinook airframe will be seventy years old. The apache and the black hawk will be fifty. They upgraded, for sure, but that's a long time without a new airframe. When you consider that Army aviation as a whole has logged more than five million in air combat hours in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, what's the cost per hour of those suckers? Those same birds are still going to be flying ten and fifteen years from now. So yeah, those weapon system programs are expensive. Really expensive, in fact. But they're not taken lightly. You don't get a few new B-2s just because some general wants one. What they have is what they get.

engletl
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

For $15.3 billion the Navy has received a carrier that has a life cycle of 50 years and will be refueled only once @ 25 years

bloody spaniard
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

Jaime, any mention of the hundreds of "intrinsically- important" paper shufflers, er, support staff PER fighting man in the trenches?
O how much early retirement pensions meted out to veterans cost us? Long live double- dipping. Unfortunately, the poor military disabled get way too little...
Or perhaps a hint of how many millions in unmarked bills is squeezed per satchel & handed to the average chieftain "ally" or used as start-up seed money for a Moe's falafel emporium?

No, I didn't think so.

Support the war effort. It's either there or here...[sarcasm]

Edited by user 14 years ago | Reason: Not specified

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

For $15.3 billion the Navy has received a carrier that has a life cycle of 50 years and will be refueled only once @ 25 years

engletl wrote:

It is a bargain at that price. We should pick up 4 more so we can simultaneously attack Iran and defend South Korea and Japan.

bloody spaniard
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

With today's evolving technology, aircraft carriers will be extremely easy to sink unless we are at war with Ethiopian pirates or Papuan headhunters.

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

14 years ago

Yeah. And soon everyone will have stealth technology remote control airplanes that cost a few million.....

Who has a fleet navy left? I know the ChiComs have subs.....and some boats.....

Warfare has changed.

Right now were being bled to death from the inside.

engletl
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

With today's evolving technology, aircraft carriers will be extremely easy to sink unless we are at war with Ethiopian pirates or Papuan headhunters.

bloody spaniard wrote:

You would be surprised to find out how hard it is to even hit, let alone actually sink a carrier.

(I am slightly biased though, seeing how I work for the only company that builds carriers in the U.S.A.)

sure wish we had a push for a 600 ship Navy again

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#10

The biggest threat to the US Navy is rust.

bloody spaniard
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#11

You would be surprised to find out how hard it is to even hit, let alone actually sink a carrier.
(I am slightly biased though, seeing how I work for the only company that builds carriers in the U.S.A.)
sure wish we had a push for a 600 ship Navy again

engletl wrote:

Kamikazes in antiquated aircraft didn't seem to have a problem hitting them 65 years ago, and a few years back a couple of clueless Yemenis in a leaky tub almost sunk the USS Cole (destroyer). Not to say that technology AND security precautions haven't advanced, Todd, but I would warrant to say that a large, almost stationary target such as a carrier could be damaged by an advanced adversary's rockets and/or torpedoes. Call it a hunch, but as ZRX stated, warfare HAS changed a bit... Perhaps not so much to boatbuilders...

Boats are great for intimidating 3rd world potentates though.

Edited by user 14 years ago | Reason: Not specified

bloody spaniard
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#12

The biggest threat to the Titanic is rust.

HockeyDad wrote:

:-"

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#13

With today's evolving technology, aircraft carriers will be extremely easy to sink unless we are at war with Ethiopian pirates or Papuan headhunters.

bloody spaniard wrote:

nobody ever thinks about the Somali pirates... 😞

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

14 years ago

#14

I heard they stole hot wings.....

engletl
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#15

Kamikazes in antiquated aircraft didn't seem to have a problem hitting them 65 years ago, and a few years back a couple of clueless Yemenis in a leaky tub almost sunk the USS Cole (destroyer). Not to say that technology AND security precautions haven't advanced, Todd, but I would warrant to say that a large, almost stationery target such as a carrier could be damaged by an advanced adversary's rockets and/or torpedoes. Call it a hunch, but as ZRX stated, warfare HAS changed a bit... Perhaps not so much to boatbuilders...

Boats are great for intimidating 3rd world potentates though.

bloody spaniard wrote:

I was honored to help rebuild the USS Cole.

Security protocol has been advanced, but there are still unique situations that can happen.

Carriers are no way "stationary" as their WWII predecessors were. many would be surprised at how quickly they can move nowadays. plus defensive systems now in use nearly eliminate kamikaze/missile attacks. Torpedoes on the other hand are the most dangerous threat left to all ships

bloody spaniard
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#16

Thanks for the grammatical correction, my brother. (smiling)
I will check out your link when I'm revived.
🇨🇮

bloody spaniard
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#17

nobody ever thinks about the Somali pirates... 😞

DrafterX wrote:

...or the Libyan pirates from the shores of Tripoliiiiiiiiiiiiiii.:-({|= 🖐

Edited by user 14 years ago | Reason: Not specified

DadZilla3
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#18

With today's evolving technology, aircraft carriers will be extremely easy to sink unless we are at war with Ethiopian pirates or Papuan headhunters.

bloody spaniard wrote:

Not so harmless as we might think. Word around Washington is, with covert Chinese help the Papuan headhunters are secretly developing cruise spear technology as we speak.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#19

Not so harmless as we might think. Word around Washington is, with covert Chinese help the Papuan headhunters are secretly developing cruise spear technology as we speak.

DadZilla3 wrote:

You all may be laughing now, but look what our third-world buddies over in Kenya were able to do to our Executive branch...

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

14 years ago

#20

=d> =d> =d>

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: