backtop


Print 140 comment(s) - last by scrapsma54.. on Oct 17 at 10:39 AM


Freedom Profile  (Source: Lmccsteam.com)

Freedom Stern Doors  (Source: Llcsteam.com)
Freedom littoral combat ship demonstrates stern ramp and side launch doors

The Lockheed Martin Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) team recently demonstrated the operation of the innovative stern ramp and side doors on Freedom, the nation’s first littoral combat ship. These doors are key elements to the ships launch and recovery systems.

The littoral, or close-to-shore operations, of the Navy will be assisted by the agile 377-foot Freedom. The ships design was optimized for the launch and recovery of a variety of manned and unmanned watercraft designed to undertake multiple mission types including surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, minehunting, and special operations. The ship can also conduct humanitarian aid missions as well. <

The stern ramp on the Freedom can launch and recover large hard-bottomed vehicles like 11-meter rigid hull inflatable boats or the special operations forces high speed boat while the ship is underway. Freedom is powered by fixed and steerable Rolls-Royce water jets for superior maneuverability.

Freedom also has a side door that provides a second launch and recovery point for smaller watercraft and can be used for replenishing ship stores and refueling at sea. Both access points to the interior of the ship are serviced by an overhead crane that extends overboard and can lift any vehicle designed to be carries by Freedom. Freedom is currently still under construction at Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin, and is scheduled for completion and delivery in 2008.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Anyone else find the name totally cringeworthy?
By Amiga500 on 10/15/2007 1:22:30 PM , Rating: 5
I do :-)

Not very imaginative either! Not only is the Navy's procurement system sh_t, but it's naming system sucks too!




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/15/2007 1:25:53 PM , Rating: 5
I think the Navy missed a "C" ;-)


By Egglick on 10/15/2007 1:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
At first, I thought this was a boat where people did literary combat.


By helios220 on 10/15/2007 1:46:54 PM , Rating: 5
I think I'd be in trouble if I made a Seaman reference here. Oops.


RE: Anyone else find the name totally cringeworthy?
By Lord 666 on 10/15/2007 11:34:59 PM , Rating: 3
Thats the first thing I thought too.

But it would make sense; a new clittoral vessel with flaps that open in the stern section to take on sea men.


By scrapsma54 on 10/17/2007 10:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
Where's the limey sea man when we need him?


Boating Accident?
By Blight AC on 10/15/2007 12:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, what is the caption pic at the top, looks kinda like a cruise ship running over people.. any place I can get a larger version of this picture?




RE: Boating Accident?
By Blight AC on 10/15/2007 12:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually.. now that I look at it closer.. kinda looks like a ship coming off of dry dock.


RE: Boating Accident?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 10/15/2007 12:30:14 PM , Rating: 5
RE: Boating Accident?
By Blight AC on 10/15/2007 12:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
It is indeed, and thanks for the link. :D


RE: Boating Accident?
By Polynikes on 10/15/2007 1:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how far it leans the other way when it rebounds...


RE: Boating Accident?
By feelingshorter on 10/16/2007 12:37:42 AM , Rating: 2
Man i thought the same thing! I thought that ship was doing some sort of ship maneuver for a show or something. But its just coming off of a dry dock and making a huge water splash.


No deck guns?
By iFX on 10/15/2007 1:25:51 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see any deck guns, missles, even AA guns. I know this sort of ship wouldn't be deployed away from other larger support shits to protect it, but who knows, better safe than sorry I say.




RE: No deck guns?
By Chernobyl68 on 10/15/2007 1:44:16 PM , Rating: 3
I'd hazard a guess that weapon systems aren't installed yet. I see a sponson at bridge level that could easily be a CIWS mount location. two of those, plus another aft would make great AA coverage. Missiles currently are usually VLS systems, which you wouldn't see from these angles. As a littoral warfare ships its biggest adversaries would likely be shore based batteries and small boats. .50 cals, maybe a light cannon, would be great for small boat defense. There have been talks of the newer automatic gun systems being deck-retractable as a Radar X-section improvement measure. Personally, I'd like to see the 8" gun return to the navy's arsenal.


RE: No deck guns?
By Oscarine on 10/15/2007 2:16:44 PM , Rating: 3
This will probably have a smaller gun system, probably around the same size the Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates have. Plus assorted CIWS and Missle Mounts.

As far as bigger guns, the DDX? Destroyers will have 155mm Automated guns that are supposed to be multi-munition with a range of about 100nm and a rof of like 10-15 per minute sustained range.


RE: No deck guns?
By werepossum on 10/15/2007 2:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this one of the newer low radar cross-section ships where the 155mm's retract into housings?

I too would like to see the big guns return. When you need them there's nothing better, and with modern technology - imagine an 8" gun (or 12", or 15"!) loaded with ICM! Bomblets for days.


Made in Wisconsin??
By ninjit on 10/15/2007 3:26:12 PM , Rating: 1
Yeh, for all those Special OPs the navy SEALS need to perform against the Canadians in Lake Superior and Michigan.

But seriously, 377' is a pretty big boat (or ship rather), how are they getting it to sea from there?

I didn't think there were any significant rivers connecting the great lakes to the ocean (at least not big enough to move a ship through).

Then again, this is supposed to be shallow water capable, so maybe getting out to the Atlantic will be their biggest field test/proof.




RE: Made in Wisconsin??
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 3:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
there are several shipbuilders in manitowoc, michigan. the town borders lake michigan, which in turn is part of the "big lakes", and the lakes in turn are connected to the atlantic through two canal systems - the saint lawrence and the great lakes waterway.


RE: Made in Wisconsin??
By throughhyperspace on 10/15/2007 6:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
Apologies for an anal correction, but being from Wisconsin I must interject with the info that Manitowoc is in Wisconsin, not Michigan. Also Great Lakes is how they are referred to. Not sure if "big lakes" is translation thing, but I've never heard them referred to as such.

Nice to know the local economy is getting to benefit from a much needed upgrade to our Spec Ops capabilities.

Ha! Anal correction.. You know what I meant.. Or maybe not. And if not, shame on you!


RE: Made in Wisconsin??
By throughhyperspace on 10/15/2007 7:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
And if your interested, Manitowoc is a word(Munedoowk)derived from Algonquin speaking Native Americans sometimes translated as "home of the good spirit" or "the devils den". While that may seem strange, the root of the word "Manitou" is translated simply as spirit. Being an animistic people, the concepts of good and evil are quite different than in the Judeo-Christian tradition.


RE: Made in Wisconsin??
By masher2 (blog) on 10/15/2007 3:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "I didn't think there were any significant rivers connecting the great lakes to the ocean (at least not big enough to move a ship through)"

There is the St. Lawrence Seaway, which connects Lake Superior to the Atlantic. The locks in the Seaway can handle ships up to 760 feet long and almost 30 feet of draft, far more than the 377 feet in length and 10 ft. draft of this vessel.


RE: Made in Wisconsin??
By ira176 on 10/16/2007 12:41:40 AM , Rating: 2
The St. Lawrence Seaway is a pretty good sized water way, which empties the great lakes into the ocean. This seaway can accomodate cargo ships over 600 ft in length.


Not that familiar with this ship, but...
By Locutus465 on 10/15/2007 1:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if this ship is at all stealthed up... I know the Navy had been working on a stealth ship at some point, not sure if this has anything to do with that project, or has been influenced by in anyway... Neat ship though, I wonder where I can get one ;)




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 10/15/2007 1:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at the sloped angles and everything, I'd have to think there are some stealth capabilities in here. I wouldn't say its got the cross section of a bird on radar, but it's probably significantly less by just incorporating a few of those angles.


By Amiga500 on 10/15/2007 1:21:03 PM , Rating: 3
The Arleigh Burke class of guided missile destroyers already have been designed with low-observables in mind.


Never understand...
By Vim on 10/16/2007 6:07:50 AM , Rating: 2
If this is exclusively for the U.S. Navy, why are they so public about such developments?

I mean, yes, we should let our "enemies" and "friendlies" alike know that we kick ass at military developments [among many other things ;)], even though at times, mainly present day, military development shouldn't be such a priority.

However, if present day was a military prioritizing world (which I think it isn't), wouldn't keeping advancements or developments like the one aforementioned quiet or "down low" be in itself a priority?

Regardless, great advancement might I add.




RE: Never understand...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/16/2007 10:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If this is exclusively for the U.S. Navy, why are they so public about such developments?

The point is we are putting out the image of "You can't win against what were packing, its better for you to hit the negotiation table because if you want a fight, your not gonna win." This is how diplomacy works, because there is no benefit to them of provoking a conflict, they would suffer far greater losses in battle than they would at the negotiation table. If going to War means you win alot more than negotiation, people would be going to war all over the place.

quote:
I mean, yes, we should let our "enemies" and "friendlies" alike know that we kick ass at military developments [among many other things ;)], even though at times, mainly present day, military development shouldn't be such a priority.

Take your eye off the ball and you will lose the advantage. If our military wasn't capable of attacking and winning just about anywhere, our ability to negotiate would be decreased. People only negotiate because as I stated above, they don't want to suffer the losses of a stand up fight. Military advancement should be a top priority at all times, its what keeps everyone talking.

quote:
However, if present day was a military prioritizing world (which I think it isn't), wouldn't keeping advancements or developments like the one aforementioned quiet or "down low" be in itself a priority?

Present day is still military prioritizing, you just aren't paying attention. We keep many of our projects a secret, we also keep their capabilities far more secret. Ok we all know the F-22 and its basic characteristics and capabilities, however there are still many things classified that we do not know, such as maximum speed, targeting range, etc... All we have are estimates based on common principles. The purpose of the F-22 information was given out was like I stated at the top here, we want our enemies to know that they don't have a chance in hell of defeating a squadron of these babies, so they will be less likely to get confrontational.


I've heard this system will be put on hold...
By blckgrffn on 10/16/2007 9:22:44 AM , Rating: 2
Congressional spending committee evidently told the navy to rebid much of the ship. They aren't going to finish building the second one.




By Martin Blank on 10/16/2007 11:40:12 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, LCS-2 (USS Independence, being built by General Dynamics) will probably be finished, though similar cost concerns present there may prevent LCS-4 from being built. LCS-3 (the second Lockheed-Martin vessel patterned after the Freedom) has been stopped, and will be rebid. This doesn't mean that it won't be completed, and may even be completed by LM, but it's going to wait for a while.

The two ships are very different designs (LM has produced a semi-planing monohull while GD is building a trimaran), and it was intended to have LCS-1/3 and LCS-2/4 compete for the future of the design, with the Navy intending to purchase more than 50 ships of the winning design.


Cool...
By vortmax on 10/15/2007 12:22:20 PM , Rating: 3
You don't see many stories about new ships. This is unique...




By AMDfreak on 10/16/2007 11:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ship can also conduct humanitarian aid missions as well.


This sentence has been brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.




a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By ksherman on 10/15/2007 1:41:16 PM , Rating: 3
From what I understand, this is not a defensive ship. This seems to more offensive, like if the Marines needed to invade a beach head, they would launch from a ship like this.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By helios220 on 10/15/2007 2:06:25 PM , Rating: 5
You act like this is a new development or some sort of foreshadowing for some sinister plot.

The US Navy has had ships to support amphibious assaults for decades if not longer, along with most other major Navies in the world. The LCS platform is an evolution of existing capabilities.

Germany still builds U-Boats, it doesn't mean you guys are going to start sinking British passenger liners for sh!ts and giggles.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By weskurtz0081 on 10/15/2007 2:30:09 PM , Rating: 5
Gul Westfale,

Things are constantly being built because some time in the future they might be useful, or because some time not to long ago they might have had a use and therefore might have on in he future.

Give it a FING rest, they built a small ship that can run in shallow water..... big fing deal.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By Brockway on 10/15/2007 3:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
Its a stealthy close to shore combat/support ship. Its a kind of replacement for the aging frigates with more capabilities and better survivability.


RE: a question
By arazok on 10/15/2007 3:32:00 PM , Rating: 3
Alright, you've done it. You've exposed the sinister plot. The US built this to TAKE OVER THE WORLD! There is obviously no other explanation.


RE: a question
By ArneBjarne on 10/15/2007 4:30:04 PM , Rating: 3
I knew it, Purple Tentacle is on the loose :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/Dott...


RE: a question
By 1078feba on 10/15/2007 2:35:19 PM , Rating: 5
Gul,
The article is incorrect.

80% of the earth's human population lives within 50 miles of the coastline of a major body of water, thus, the "littorals".
Someone else stated that the Navy-Marine Corps team has had ships such as these, LHD's, LPD's and the like, for decades, and they are correct. Thye too, are also considered "littoral" ships, as they are the Amphibs.

Also known as the "Green Water Navy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-water_navy

This class is all about the ability to kick in the door in any littoral region in the world. The Coasties (God love 'em, Coasties ROCK!) can't do it, as they have neither the capability, nor the mandate.

This class is pretty much specifically used by the Marine Corps, as amphib ops is our bread and butter. We pioneered it, and to some extent perfected it, since the end of WWII. In fact, this class of ships is the physical manifestation of lessons learned during the island hopping campaign in the Pacific during WWII. Hard lessons learned at Iwo, Guadalcanal and Oki.

And they will always, always be needed.



RE: a question
By 1078feba on 10/15/2007 2:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
I might add, due to it's size and that attribute's subsequent restrictions on capabilities, this little beauty looks perfect for covert ops insertion/extraction, think Recon and Seals.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: a question
By dever on 10/15/2007 3:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
How are you giving +1? You've already posted.

I gave him one for you.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: a question
By kinnoch on 10/15/2007 5:58:18 PM , Rating: 3
The +1 that you gave him went away when you posted.


RE: a question
By Nfarce on 10/15/2007 2:39:38 PM , Rating: 3
I'll help you out here: think of this ship as more of an evolution of past technologies that needs to match future requirements of combat engagement. Not unlike what the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is doing for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.

This new class of ship will combine Special Operations Forces (SOF) support with high speed transit, Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO), Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), UAV operations, and most certainly be involved with Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP). Further, like the JSF, this ship is a relatively inexpensive combat tool that offers a lot of effective and far reaching diversity for the money.

Just as war tactics change over time, so must the hardware.


RE: a question
By 1078feba on 10/15/2007 2:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
Very well said.


RE: a question
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/15/2007 2:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Right you are. Germany didn't invade Iraq, they only started a couple world wars, murdering millions causing the deaths of tens of millions more people. But invading an obviously hostile nation, which had started 2 wars, and run by a regime responsible for hundred of thousands of deaths, that's real bad, eh?


RE: a question
By werepossum on 10/15/2007 2:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! France and Belgium are still busy planting trees so the next invading German army can march in the shade.

I'd also note that Germany was busy selling as much as possible to Saddam. I guess a murderous dictator killing a few Jews in between invading his neighbors can't be allowed to interfere with business, eh? Cause we all know how sorry Germany is about that little chapter.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 2:56:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'd also note that Germany was busy selling as much as possible to Saddam. I guess a murderous dictator killing a few Jews in between invading his neighbors can't be allowed to interfere with business, eh? Cause we all know how sorry Germany is about that little chapter.


saddam's biggest supporter during the war with iran was the US. germany sold him stuff, as did every other european country. germany has also sold submarines and other military hardware to israel. arms dealers have no morals, only banking accounts. i think that is the same in every country.


RE: a question
By jskirwin on 10/15/2007 3:01:28 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, the U.S. armed Saddam, all right.

With T-72 tanks, BMP armored personnel carriers, AK-47 rifles, Pecheneg machine guns, Degtyarov-Shpagin Krupnokaliberny heavy machine guns, Bazalt RPGs, MiGs, Antonovs, SCUDs, Tunguska air-defense systems, and all the other weaponry produced by American manufacturers.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 3:05:05 PM , Rating: 1
those names don't really sound german either....

as for US support of saddam's regime, take a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq...

"Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons"


RE: a question
By masher2 (blog) on 10/15/2007 3:32:55 PM , Rating: 3
> "as for US support of saddam's regime, take a look"

None of that supports your earlier claim that "Saddam's biggest supporter during the Iran War was the US". That statement is false, plain and simple. By far the largest arms supplier was the Soviet Union, and even Germany did more to arm Iraq than did the US.


RE: a question
By Ammohunt on 10/15/2007 3:55:27 PM , Rating: 3
Don't be stupid you haven't explained why America was supporting Iraq at the time. Ignorant people like you purposefully leave out historical context because either you are not aware of the facts or like making stupid argument to further your leftist agenda. Iraq was a key player in American interests against Iran and to a lesser extent the soviets in Afghanistan. We sold them older obsolete American hardware such as M-110 howitzers and sparrow missile systems which Iraq relied on us to supply ammunition for. At that time Iran was the greater enemy. Germany and other European countries we actively selling Saddam equipment to build centrifuges to refine Uranium and technology related to biological and chemical warfare while Saddam was actively pursuing a hostile agenda against America and its allies. Not to exclude the avoidance of 13 agreed UN requirements for disarmament among others as required by the ceasing of hostilities at the end of the UN action against Iraq (first gulf war).

Learn some history before you spout off your mouth.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By Ringold on 10/15/2007 3:11:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
you are obviously very young/very uneducated. wikipedia is a good place to start reading up on history


Since you've descended to sly insults, I'll go ahead and sink as well. Based on your other posts you've obviously very much a tool (not necessarily a young tool) and also need to brush up on history, though preferably not from the slightly left-ish Wikipedia but, you know, real sources, not editorials that can use citations.

We build these ships not for the battles of today; I don't see the need for conducting opposed landings with Marines any time in the next year or so, certainly. I'd direct your attentions to first the Spanish American War and the totally unprepared state of the Army (and to a much lesser degree the Navy) as the first grand example in the modern era of what happens when liberal isolationism leads to the emasculation of a standing military forces. The point is driven home again in World War 1 when it took quite a long time for us to spool up our army yet again (though we managed logistical miracles once in Europe). With WW2 the free world can be thankful we had a President willingly to lie and cheat at any cost to make certain we were prepared but again in Korea we suffered a bit from spooling down a bit too much post-WW2.

Since then, at least in non-pacifist nations, it's essentially common wisdom that with modern arms making an effective mobilization from scratch take years or decades rather than weeks or months in past centuries the only way to ensure security is to be fairly mobilized at all times.

Hence the need for equipment with capabilities not yet actually needed.

Beyond that there's a strong enough precedent that as long as we don't involve ourselves in manners similar to Vietnam and Iraq that maintaining massive military strength is a strong deterrent to international conflict.


RE: a question
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/15/2007 3:12:11 PM , Rating: 3
You are obviously an arrogant revisionist ass. What are your credentials in history? Your expertise at reading recycled garbage on wikipedia probably doesn't compare to an education in International Relations.

Name one nation that the US has invaded for "no reason", and as a Canadian, I have no reason to want to invade the US. They helped us and Great Britain crush Germany's evil ass in two wars, and they are our closest ally and trading partner.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By Ringold on 10/15/2007 3:21:37 PM , Rating: 3
Easy way to avoid a real debate, personal attacks. Nice job.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: a question
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/15/2007 3:29:14 PM , Rating: 1
Captain Orgazmo is a character from a very funny satirical film by two little know guys called Trey Parker and Matt Stone. But I will have to forgive you for your genetic lack of a sense of humor. As well, the "holocaust" "invalidates everything you say". Seeing your other post mentioning that you live in Canada, I would suggest you move back to the Fatherland or some other nation that shares you views (i.e. Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Libya, Syria, etc.).


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: a question
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: a question
By weskurtz0081 on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By weskurtz0081 on 10/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By weskurtz0081 on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By afkrotch on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By theapparition on 10/16/2007 7:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
........is that you all spend more on your military budget than on education and health care combined.

I hate to get into this little argument, but I couldn't let this go.

We may indeed spend more at the Federal level on military expenses (didn't take the time to look it up), but most schools are funded privately and by the States through State taxes. State taxes don't show up on the Federal budget. Even so, with all our piss-poor funding (as you assert), American universities as a whole are the best in the world. What do you call getting a better product for less money. I call that efficiency!

And no other country in the world match's the quality of our health care system. Once again, we don't have "universal" health care coverage (and I'm not going to debate the pros-cons of that), so there is not much need for federal funding. But one thing is unquestionable, the quality of health care is the best in the world.

Not going to get into your original argument, but your assertion falls flat on its face.


RE: a question
By Nfarce on 10/16/2007 9:03:00 AM , Rating: 2
What we are clearly dealing with here is liberal ignorance. The truth to a liberal is what he feels, not what the facts are. If this guy feels that America is hell bent on taking over the world while starving it's own people to death, then that's the truth man!

One can tell by reading his many posts (Gul's) that he's not interesting in learning anything. He just wants to continue reading his far, far leftwing nonsense - or wherever the hell he's been getting his massive misinformation on America from.

Just look at him as the little annoying 10 year old know-it-all next door who really knows nothing.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/16/2007 9:15:40 AM , Rating: 2
new orleans still looks like a bomb hit. meanwhile your president needs more money to run his ltlle war... yeah, he really takes care of his people!


RE: a question
By Nfarce on 10/16/2007 1:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Disaster preparedness and response is three-tier here in America. Someone else had to school you on how our state powers are separated ( constitutionally I might add) from the federal government's powers, so I won't waste time on the ignorant with that. The first level of response to a disaster is locally (City of New Orleans). The second level of response is the state (Louisiana). The third and final level of response in the federal government. Now since those first two levels were complete failures at the hands of Democrats (left wingers), our bloated and bureaucratic government has to clean up the mess. Levels upon levels of red tape and bureaucracy from everything from what companies are contracted and approved for automobile salvage to home gutting and leveling.

Homes have to be approved to be gutted, razed, and rebuilt. Let's also not forget that a lot of home owners didn't even have insurance and have had to apply for FEDERAL AID. On top of that, the manual labor required for the clean up is few and far between. There has been hundreds of millions of federal and private funds appropriated for Katrina relief, yet less than 20% has ever seen the intended destination due to all the red tape.

The Mississippi gulf coast was actually hit even worse than New Orleans, yet they are WELL on their way back to recovery and didn't have NEAR the national/worldwide sympathy and financial support. I have relatives there, and they have been living in their new homes for a year after suffering in a cramped FEMA trailer for a year:

http://www.davidmetraux.com/news/2006/hurricane_ka...

The state and local leaders of Mississippi did their FREAKING JOBS! Also, I might add, the people knew to get the HELL out of the way of a hurricane and didn't need some dumbass government bureaucrat to tell them to! Just like Florida did managing the aftermath of hurricane Andrew in 1992 in Miami. Again, you are just a ranting ignoramus troll devoid of any perception of reality beyond your nose of leftism. I wonder, were you taught to be this ignorant in school or are you just reflective of your parents?

Side note: war funding always has, and always will be, separated from general domestic funding, meaning nothing is taken from one to subsidize the other. That's another Constitutional thing you probably never heard of. What a tool LOL.


RE: a question
By jskirwin on 10/15/2007 3:15:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
you are obviously very young/very uneducated.


And you sir are bald.

quote:
wikipedia is a good place to start reading up on history


Read up on it? I lived it. I happen to remember quite clearly Saddam's war with Iran, and even his attack on a US naval warship, the USS Stark, in 1987. Less than 2 years later, he was bullying Kuwait over access to an oil field they shared, claiming that the emirate was stealing his oil.

In Aug 1990 he decided to take care of the problem, and would have taken over Saudi Arabia too if the Americans hadn't gotten over their shock and threatened him.

Invades countries for no reason... Your pacifism is paid for with the blood of my countrymen.

Besides I prefer books myself. They've got lots of big words in them, but they tend not to be manipulated by morons with axes to grind.

quote:
as for invading a nation that invades others for no reason and is run by a regime that has caused innumerable deaths


And you sir are very bald.

For a German to lecture Americans on war and morality is quite a hoot given recent history. Anti-Americanism may have replaced anti-semitism in Germany, but otherwise little else has changed.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: a question
By Ringold on 10/15/2007 3:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
Since when is world opinion a valid historical argument, again?

Just as relevant, how often is public opinion on anything correct?

Again, opinions in place of true argument.

The Canadian part doesn't shock me either given that Canada during WW2 had a world-class military and is now looked down upon as irrelevant in global politics by even third-world fleabags after decades of slowly eroding Canada's military capacity. I honestly believe America's Coast Guard and state highway troopers could successfully mount a better defense of America than could Canada's entire armed forced could of Canada.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 3:36:19 PM , Rating: 1
in a democratic country, public opinion is very important. one could even argue that it is the only thing that matters... but then a US citizen wouldn't know that.


RE: a question
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/15/2007 4:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
Public opinion was very important to the "Third Reich" as well. Without the massive support for the Nazi government as demonstrated by the millions-strong pro-Hitler rallies at Nuremberg etc., the war would never have happened. So I guess as a German citizen, you would know that.


RE: a question
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/15/2007 3:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
Good points, then you go ahead and ruin it with your ignorance. Canada may be full of dumbasses like Gul, but remember that more than half of Americans actually voted for Al Gore. Don't forget Canada is one of the poor few doing the dirty work in Afghanistan, and the only country to have deployed main battle tanks there (they might be older than the parents of the kids driving them, but I'd like to see a state trooper take on a squadron of 60 ton battle machines). Meanwhile Germany sits with their thumbs up their arses in northern Afghanistan, with orders to run away if attacked by the Taliban. Also, they act as "peacekeepers" in Kosovo, allowing atrocities to be committed against innocent Serbs and Christians by the Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group known as the KLA.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 4:03:05 PM , Rating: 1
those are german tanks canada has deployed :) and they're not that old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#Operators

so are you going to tell the canadians that they are driving "evil" german tanks now?


RE: a question
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/15/2007 4:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. The current tanks deployed are Leopard C1's from the sixties. They don't even have air-con, and the poor troopers inside and suffering heatstroke before they even reach the battlefield. The Leopard II's are going to be delivered second-hand from Denmark I believe, but aren't here in Canada yet (as far as I know).


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 4:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
according to the wiki article your L2s will be arriving from the netherlands shortly, but right now you have 20 L2s deployed in afghanistan that are on loan from that most evil of countries, germany.


RE: a question
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/15/2007 4:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, read the article. So a couple Leopard IIs are there, but mostly the old wagons. From the Netherlands (Dutch/Danish... close enough). By the way, not to question your sanity in any way, but a piece of machinery can't actually be evil :)


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 4:24:40 PM , Rating: 1
guns don't kill people, people kill people?


RE: a question
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/15/2007 4:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. Two of Germany's most successful tanks of the early war (1939-1941) were the Panzer 35(t) and 38(t) types. They happened to be Skoda manufactured Czechoslovakian vehicles, captured by the Germans after Czechoslovakia was annexed. In Czech hands, these weapons killed no one. In German hands, they effected the invasions of Poland and France.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 4:36:44 PM , Rating: 1
tanks are built to kill people, a farming tractor is built to feed them. of course a tank cannot kill on its own, but the fact that somebody built them tells you something about their intent, no?


RE: a question
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/15/2007 4:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
The intent in this particular example, was to defend against a re-militarizing Germany. All of Czechoslovakia's military spending up to 1939 was defensive. Most of it was spent on building static fortifications in the mountains in the Sudetenland. Furthermore, Skoda built the 35(t) on an existing tractor chassis, as the Czechs had no prior war industry. Other tools meant to feed, but can also kill: spear, bow and arrow, harpoon, sharp rock, tree branch? Shall I go on? Your steadfast pacifism is admirable, but naive.

Anyways, I have to get some things done today, but I enjoyed our friendly little spat. Good day to you!


RE: a question
By weskurtz0081 on 10/15/2007 4:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
People kill people.... guns are objects they use to commit these acts. If they weren't using a gun they would just use a knife, or their hands.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 4:40:21 PM , Rating: 3
it takes conviction to do it with a knife or bare hands, but it seems to be rather easy with a gun. ever heard of a random strangling? or a drive-by knifing?


RE: a question
By weskurtz0081 on 10/15/2007 4:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
drive by knifings happen in China, the Axe Gang is known for throwing Axes;) As far as a random strangling, if more people had Force Choke, I think it would happen all the time.... who would need a gun?


RE: a question
By mmatis on 10/15/2007 9:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
More than one half of the Americans who bothered to vote for either of the putrid feces running in 2000 voted for Al Gore. That's NOWHERE near one half of Americans. The stench of the Jackasses and the Jackasses in Elephant Suits is overwhelming, but that's all that gets through the swill of our political (and media) system.


RE: a question
By rdeegvainl on 10/16/2007 7:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
What do you really know about kosovo? have you ever been there? have you actually seen what the Germans are doing there? They are doing some wonderful things here, and if you asked the locals of Kosovo what they think, they will say the same thing. The Germans are working the exact same jobs in Kosovo as the americans, and they put out just as hard here. I don't know about the rest of what your saying, but I do know about kosovo. So I say shut it, you sir, are wrong.


RE: a question
By Nfarce on 10/15/2007 3:55:48 PM , Rating: 3
Give it up, dude. You aren't going to get anywhere. The pacifist mind cannot comprehend the need to stay on top of bleeding edge technology for tomorrow, not just for today. We cannot rely on 1980s technology forever.

The thought of China and Russia building up and advancing their military hardware, especially Russia, bothers me. A lot. What pacifists never have and never will understand is that strong military hardware is as much a deterrent as it is an effective platform to use should the need arise. Further, it takes years and sometimes decades to implement a piece hardware from concept to the front line. Aircraft manufacturer proposals for an F-15 replacement were issued back in 1986. The YF-22 prototype had it's first flight in 1990, and only recently it's been slowly brought on line as an active fighter.

We can't just sit around and wait for something to happen and then build up our forces and technology. It just doesn't work that way. As someone else mentioned, America was very complacent to the buildup of the Nazi regime. We still had fabric covered aircraft in the mid-30s as part of our front line air defense. It wasn't until Hitler's invasion that we really started kicking up hardware production with new technology like the P-51. The first two years in Europe were not met with huge successes by us because we were not fully prepared. Just about every able bodied American who wasn't already working or in the war volunteered to be a part of the military build up.

Unfortunately, a lot of people just can't understand that. Fortunately, our congresspeople who approve military appropriations funding do.


RE: a question
By Ammohunt on 10/15/2007 4:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot to mention that pacifist didn't exist(successfully) until modern times. Its hard to be a pacifist without people willing to fight around you.


RE: a question
By Nfarce on 10/15/2007 5:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. Hard to be a pacifist when you are dead.


RE: a question
By arazok on 10/15/2007 4:02:54 PM , Rating: 3
As a Canadian, I can tell you that I believe the US has always taken the moral high ground. It's popular to look down our noses at the Americans for everything, and to think we're so much more civilized. It's pathetic. The US is the worlds single largest source of international aid (food, vaccines, cash) for poor countries, is the source for the vast majority of the worlds technological breakthroughs, bails out virtually any country that's economic collapses (via the IMF), and does more to act as a source of world stability and peace then any other country in the world.

People like to point to everything 'bad' the American do and use it to paint an evil empire. You know, right or wrong, they were under no obligation to install a democratic government in Iraq. They could have gone in there, installed some friendly strong man and let him obliterate 1/3 of the population trying to destroy the old guard. Heck, they could have done the same thing themselves, but they didn't - because at the heart of things, the Americans are generally trying to make the world a safer, happier place.

I wish I could send dumb, stupid, lefty retards like you, into a parallel universe where the USSR won the cold war. I would love to hear your tales of how everyone is better off with the Russians pulling all the strings.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 4:06:41 PM , Rating: 1
i don't believe that we'd be better off with the russians, but i wonder what would happen if NOBODY was pulling them and we could all do our own thing, and the UN would handle international conflicts... but as long as the US (and the other security council members) keeps underminig the UN (and any intrnational treaty, really) that is never going to happen.


RE: a question
By Nfarce on 10/15/2007 5:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but i wonder what would happen if NOBODY was pulling them and we could all do our own thing, and the UN would handle international conflicts


Uhm, dude, you are either very naive or don't understand or don't want to understand reality. Just look at Darfur for UN successes. They are a relief organization and nothing else. Oh yeah, and the UN did a real outstanding job of keeping Saddam in his place for 12 years and 17 violated resolutions.


RE: a question
By rcc on 10/16/2007 2:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
Just think, if the UN had done it's "job". The US, and allies, may not have had to go into Iraq.


RE: a question
By creathir on 10/15/2007 7:07:09 PM , Rating: 1
Wikipedia is a good source for general knowledge information, not hard facts. Political opinions are too easily inserted into the content to provide a non-biased source of information.

This watercraft has nothing to do with protecting our shores from Mexico or Canada. A landing craft is NOT a defensive craft, it is for the offense. A good example of the use of landing craft style ships is to look at D-Day. Germany fortified the French coastline so much that diversionary tactics and an all out assault led by thousands of Allied troops was needed to take a foothold in mainland Europe. I know you believe such a vessel is not needed in this day and age, and you may be right, but tell that to Saddam after Desert Storm. He was certain we would attack from the shoreline, and we even faked an attack using our Marines. The Iraqi invaders even thought they had defeated us when we backed off on the invasion. Little did they know that hundreds of tanks were making their way across the Saudi desert in order to swing around the primary battle groups and take them out from behind.

Landing crafts are useful for freeing people from fascist dictators, and have worked in that capacity for years now.

And you are right, I am not afraid of an invasion by ANY nation, I do sleep quite well at night. Why? Because my nation has the genius to continue to spend money on warfare development to ensure we are always leading the way technologically speaking.

Not to sound nationalistic, but I would like to see ANY nation take on the United States or its allies. I dare say even try. You will see what happens.

- Creathir


RE: a question
By theflux on 10/15/2007 3:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Wow this thread sure degenerated fast.


RE: a question
By Nfarce on 10/15/2007 4:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. You can just about guarantee any news topic here posted that has to do with US military hardware advances is going to get some people's boxers in a bunch.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 4:16:43 PM , Rating: 1
we do our best.


RE: a question
By weskurtz0081 on 10/15/2007 4:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
At least this has been civil for the most part. So many other thread are absolute anarchy and nothing but name calling. While the name calling has occurred a few times in this thread, it has been under control.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 4:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
lol

back when i was still playing planetside there was this hardcore ultra rightwing nutter called "progfrog" who always argued with a hardcore hippie/treehugger (forgot his name), and i can't even remember how many of their threads the admins on the PS boards shut down... i tried arguing with him a few times, but there was no point. his posts sometimes started out calling everyone in the world nazis, fascists, and communists, sometimes all in the same sentence. god, the fun i had imagining the bulging veins on his neck and forehead... good times, good times.


RE: a question
By afkrotch on 10/15/2007 6:57:25 PM , Rating: 1
No, instead Germany invaded Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Poland, Russia, and how many other countries am I leaving out?


RE: a question
By Oscarine on 10/15/2007 2:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
Its not just covert, and most subs that were retrofitted for use close to land are not the quietest for that task. Also.. a submarine cannot carry the same payload not by a longshot.

Though newer submarine models are designed with more close shore support in mind.


RE: a question
By djkrypplephite on 10/15/2007 2:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
Every time somebody has an advance in technology for their military, I know they're just out to kill tons of people and create war everywhere.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: a question
By Ringold on 10/15/2007 3:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh dear. I feel so bad at being a warmonger I think I'll go cry now.

If you bother to look at those, instead of whine, you'll see that post-1913 they essentially consist of bailing other peoples asses out of the water versus our own.

Some, no less, we should've been more involved in, such as the Russian Civil War. I think we can all agree that as nasty as the Tsar's at times were they were generally a vast improvement over Stalin's regime.

Even Vietnam had some degree of legitimacy though with 20/20 hindsight we now see we could've done better by walking away. That wasn't at all clear at the time, however.

And where, since 1913, have we acquired territory, hm?

Where do you get this blind ideology, or is a nuanced view of history that might not paint America is evil just not acceptable to you?


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 3:25:07 PM , Rating: 1
america is not evil, its government is.

i am going to stop arguing here now; my original question as to the purpose of this ship has been answered and i find this discussion idiotic.

hopefully one day you will step outside of your dreamworld and look at reality rather than blindly believing everything you see on fox and CNN. i am not anti-american, as you might think, i am anti-stupidity; and if we start talking about which country did what to whom and for which reason then we'll all still be here tomorrow. there's plenty of idiocy to go around for everyone, and that isn't going to stop anytime soon. so let's leave it at that.


RE: a question
By rdeegvainl on 10/16/2007 7:42:19 AM , Rating: 2
I agree this arguement is getting stupid. Instead of pointing at each other and acusing other of things that have or have not happened, we should stop and focus on fixing ourselves.
I don't know who said it, (an internets if you do know)
No feud would last if only one side was guilty.


RE: a question
By arazok on 10/15/2007 4:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
Or just imagine if the US had not stopped at the fall of Hitler, and instead pushed right through to Russia in an attempt to restore all borders as they were before the war. Korea, Vietnam, 9/11 and Afghanistan wouldn't have happened. The decision to let Russia rule Eastern Europe was probably the single largest mistake in US history.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 4:32:50 PM , Rating: 3
given military strength of the US and russia at the end of world war 2 this was maybe not a decision, but simply how things turned out.


RE: a question
By 1078feba on 10/15/2007 3:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, so true. I just sit and day dream sometimes about ripping out the throats of helpless people everywhere. It's how I shore up my self-image of manhood. Well, that, and I wish I had a larger penis.

/sarcasm.

Seriously, if we could just agree that in spite of how well intentioned we all are, how we mean well and wish that there was no more war on the face of the planet, that, through regrettable and odious circumstances well beyond any of our collective, national control, homicidal/genocidal men and possibly women will come to power in some parts of the world and will cause great harm to their own people, and quite probably to other people as well, and that unfortunately the only way to deal with people like this is to kill them. That no amount of talk will dissuade them. That history has shown this to be true again and again and again, ad goddam nauseum, and that the only humane, civil, responsible thing to do is rid the face of the planet of them.

If we can't agree to this absolute fundamental, we the hell does that leave us?


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 3:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
i agree with what you say, but the thing is that your government wants everyone else to live by those standards, while it continues to ignore them.


RE: a question
By 1078feba on 10/15/2007 3:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Gul,
You and I may differ, even markedly, when it comes to our political outlook/persuasion, but to infer that GWB and his administration, or any potential democrat and his/her administration, wantonly engages in war for any reason other than protecting Americans is so cyncial it makes me physically ill. It is so patently insulting, so deeply, soul-wrenchingly troubling, so...personal.
Please, PLEASE. Please just drop it. The cynicism. It blinds you. And it encourages others to just tune you out. Not saying that you have nothing else to add to the conversation. Quite the opposite, a point of view different that mine is capable of illustrating where errors have been committed.
But I will be damned if I am going to listen to someone whose first word in an attempt to help is "MORON! You need to..."


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: a question
By weskurtz0081 on 10/15/2007 4:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
Gul Wastfale,

actually, weapons have been found, just not nearly as many as they had hoped. We have uncovered some stock piles of about 500 warheads equipped with mustard and sarin gas. I have no doubt he has weapons like that and more, not stuff he can hit the US with though.

Also, I know people who work(ed) for BlackWater, those guys don't have it any better off really. BW screws those guys and they don't have nearly the amount of equipment that the military does. They are also not allowed to request military assistance when they get into a jam. They have to escort VIP's around all the time and get killed doing it. They were also tasked with destroying ammo dumps. One guy I know assisted in destruction of 7 ammo dumps that were about 15 miles wide.

As far as the politicians, and the UN.... forget about it. The UN is just as bad as any other Govt. The politicians, well, they are politicians... enough said.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 4:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as the politicians, and the UN.... forget about it. The UN is just as bad as any other Govt. The politicians, well, they are politicians... enough said.


i absolutely agree.


RE: a question
By weskurtz0081 on 10/15/2007 4:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
15 miles wide each.... he was amazed by the amount of ammunition that was just lying around on the ground. You name it, it was piled up in the middle of the desert. M109 shells were among some of the pieces they were destroying, and those are some of the same things the insurgents have been using as road side bombs to break through armor.


RE: a question
By werepossum on 10/15/2007 5:44:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
actually, weapons have been found, just not nearly as many as they had hoped. We have uncovered some stock piles of about 500 warheads equipped with mustard and sarin gas.


We've found almost all of the WMD we absolutely knew he had, except I think the anthrax (not a very good weapon anyway.) What we did not find are the additional WMDs we thought he had. Either he never had them and it suited him to pretend he did to boost his Arab street cred, or he had them and we have not yet found them, or he had them and they were removed to Syria on the Russian flights in the days just before the shooting started. (Most analysts now think the first is most likely.)

I'd also like to point out that while Canada may be derided for the size of it's military, it's a damn good force, very professional and highly trained.

Also, IIRC Iraq's M109s were not purchased from or supplied by the USA, but were war prizes captured from Iran and Kuwait. Conversely his night vision equipment was mostly German and quite up to date, and his anti-armor weaponry was (I think) supplied by France and Germany. Certainly the USA supplied him with satelite intelligence during the Iraq-Iran war.

Actually, Saddam did not want to annex Kuwait, he wanted to merge Iraq and Kuwait to form a new nation, to be called Irate. (Ducking and running...)


RE: a question
By elgoliath on 10/15/2007 4:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
GWB and his administration HAVE 'wantonly' engaged in war though...

I'm not sure how you take it personally though- are you directly responsible for their actions?


RE: a question
By 1078feba on 10/15/2007 3:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
we the hell does that leave us?

Uuhhh, "we" should be "where". Man, I know that I can't type, but a mistake like that is just, well, stupid.


RE: a question
By Oscarine on 10/15/2007 2:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
If the marines were landing in force they'd use there big Phibs and LST's this is much smaller than those.


RE: a question
By Oscarine on 10/15/2007 2:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
Actually this is made to cope with modern combat situations in mind, less blue water fleet against fleet combat.

More manuverable in inland waters, faster 50 Knots?, Quieter near shore. and multi-role, Mine Sweeper, UAV, ASW, Special Forces support, Ship to ship against small missle boats, and some surface to air capability.


RE: a question
By Oscarine on 10/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: a question
By 1078feba on 10/15/2007 2:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
Anything else in the sky, rofl.

That is, if it lives up to the hype it's proposed specs state.

I toured the production line in Marietta, well, from behind the fence line they've set up on the shop floor. Saw a few yanking and banking and punching holes in the sky while I was there during the Katrina evac. Got the full indoc from company men, and if it can do what they say it can do, it's going to take quite sometime for anyone else in the world to catch up to it.

Quite seriously, it was very impressive.


RE: a question
By Oscarine on 10/15/2007 3:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah its impressive, it also falls under the axiom of building up to fight past wars.

The common argument is, there won't be much that it will ever have to fight in an air-to-air role. JSF makes alot of sense, single base platform to build upon for airforce/navy/marines, multi-role, shared parts, etc.

The F-22 would be great at say... fighting I dunno 100 SU-27s or something, and the day we need an aircraft to fight a huge aerial battle, I'd say were seeing World War 3 :P

It doesn't seem as apt to fighting the type of conflicts were engaging in at the moment.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 3:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
that is true, the F22 is widely reckoned to be the best fighter in the world atm. it seems that during initial development they kinda overshot their target because they thought that the soviets were working on something similar... but then the cold war ended and so the F22 sits alone at the top.

USAF general john jumper, who has flown both the F22 and the eurofighter typhoon said that the two planes perform similarly but that the F22 has additional capabilities (like the ability to achieve and cruise at mach 1 without using its afterburners) that the typhoon cannot match.


RE: a question
By weskurtz0081 on 10/15/2007 3:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, they performed a mock fight over Alaska with our current air to air arsenal, and not 1 F-22 would have been shot down in the battle. Of course, it could be propaganda, but I think it's pretty well on the mark. Out of the fighters, 144 "enemy" F-15's and F-18's were taken down without a single F-22 being targeted.

In another fight, a F-16 was able to target a F-22. The pilots in that fight had only about 50 hours in the F-22 and made certain mistakes that made it possible for the F-16 to get the first ever F-22 kill.

It's rather interesting how well the F-22 performs. F-22's would decimate our existing arsenal of fighters but I doubt they would do it without losses...


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 3:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
well i guess that also depends on the weapons themselves, if the F22 can target the other planes before their radar systems get a lock on the F22 then the F22 wins.


RE: a question
By weskurtz0081 on 10/15/2007 4:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well, with the coating, and the technology, the problem the F-22 poses for other fighters is they are unable to lock onto the plane, and have been locked onto and "shot down" long before the F-22 came into visual range. In a head to head dog fight, which probably won't ever happen again, the tables are probably turned or at least close to even, and mostly depend on the pilots skill and maneuverability of the aircraft.

As someone else stated above, I might not agree with everything you say, but I more than welcome your comments. It would be a pretty boring place if everyone was the same and agreed on everything, not sure if that is a place I would like to live.


RE: a question
By Gul Westfale on 10/15/2007 4:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
well, thank you.

as far as dogfighting goes, i think th efuture might be drones. there is a story of how a MiG once shot down a drone that was firing on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-1_Predator#Interna...

given that a drone has lower heat signature than a plane (because of the smaller engine) and given that a drone can be designed without a cockpit, this could make future dogfighting quite complicated as a drone might be able to lock onto a plane before the plane can lock onto the drone.


RE: a question
By weskurtz0081 on 10/15/2007 4:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
Also, drones can handle more G's than a pilot can. They can endure longer flights, keep lives out of the line of fire(except what they are shooting at of course). I agree that drones is where A2A and A2G combat is going.


mmm hot
By GlassHouse69 on 10/15/07, Rating: -1
"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki