Article

2010-07-30 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sherry 2010-07-30 10:14|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 didn't we just have a story here earlier this month about how the navy was pretty much abandoning ship building (cutting WAY back)?

what gives

Posted by abu do you love 2010-07-30 11:32|| 2010-07-30 11:32|| Front Page Top

#2 Just picture Congress as a Chicken Coop Overflowing with Cackling Chickens and you'll get the "What Gives" pretty accurately.

No chicken talks to any other, just squawks as loud as he/she can(So they are seen as IMPORTAINT, and TEH ONE to talk to).

When they get near a microphone the squawking increases tenfold, and any one is constantly trying to outsquawk the other.

That explains WHY the info is Garbled, and also WHY it's never accurate.

Clear now?

Posted by Redneck Jim 2010-07-30 12:06|| 2010-07-30 12:06|| Front Page Top

#3 Tehy all want the shot at getting a boat named after them; after all Murtha did. Granted that is only an increase of 64 and doesn't cover all 535 Congessional positions, but it's a start.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2010-07-30 14:02|| 2010-07-30 14:02|| Front Page Top

#4 Even the Navy admits that its shipbuilding program is broken, and for several reasons.

1) There is no design "end date", so countless individuals insert novel changes during construction, resulting in massive cost and timetable overruns, and diminished interoperability. Likewise, those systems that could anticipate upgrades, like computers, are not as modular as they should be.

2) Proven functionality is seen as less important than speculative engineering. Design R&D should be for the ONR, not ships of the line.

3) The quality vs. quantity balance is way too far on the side of quality as far as shipbuilding goes. When even an Arleigh Burke destroyer costs $1.1B for the basic ship, and another $750m for its weaponry, it violates the old naval rule that destroyers are expendable.

Originally, destroyers were "torpedo boat destroyers", designed to thwart torpedo boats attempting to sink larger ships. As such, even today in the Persian Gulf, such ships would be very handy. Not just against small boats, but against threats like Skvall torpedoes. If nothing else, they could just drag torpedo nets.

And such ships can be very cheap and quick to build, as long as they are remembered to be expendable.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-07-30 14:18|| 2010-07-30 14:18|| Front Page Top

#5 RAISE THE YAMATO! RAISE THE MUSASHI! BANZAI!

Posted by borgboy 2010-07-30 16:30|| 2010-07-30 16:30|| Front Page Top

#6 Originally, destroyers were "torpedo boat destroyers", designed to thwart torpedo boats attempting to sink larger ships. As such, even today in the Persian Gulf, such ships would be very handy. Not just against small boats, but against threats like Skvall torpedoes. If nothing else, they could just drag torpedo nets.

Why elections are a bad thing.

Posted by Shipman 2010-07-30 19:39|| 2010-07-30 19:39|| Front Page Top

00:12 JosephMendiola
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:35 Skidmark
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:33 WTF?!
23:27 Asymmetrical Triangulation
23:23 Omang Brown9133
23:20 gorb
23:19 gorb
23:17 JosephMendiola
23:16 gorb
23:16 JosephMendiola
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:08 JosephMendiola
23:03 JosephMendiola
22:46 Swamp Blondie
22:34 Hellfish
22:05 M. Murcek
21:48 OldSpook
21:39 gorb
21:35 Anonymoose
21:33 KBK
21:32 gorb
21:19 Mercutio