Intrade: 70.5% chance Obama will win third debate

[Lonestar]

Lonestar, what's your opinion of the LCS? Everything I've heard is that it's an unarmored piece of crap, with inadequate armament.

We need it.

Bottom line, we've staked future minesweeping capabilities on the hull. If we hadn't married ourselves to "speed is armor!" it wouldn't be so bad. Or "automate ALL THE THINGS" to the point that repair lockers won't be manned during general quarters.

What they should have done was accepted a design along the MEKO line, a baseline that had module compartments for during construction. Hell, any number of small European frigate/corvette designs would have been better. Swap our the Eurotronics with Freedomtronics and call it a day.

[DaShi]

It was a simple and effective way of pointing out that counting numbers of ships compared to 1917 was retarded. Which it was.

True, but it allows the republicans to follow a strawman than to address how awful Romney's limited military plans are.

[Lonestar]

dp

[DaShi]

It was a simple and effective way of pointing out that counting numbers of ships compared to 1917 was retarded. Which it was.

True, but it allows the republicans to follow a strawman than to address how awful Romney's limited military plans are.

[DaShi]

Funny, I thought he was just using it as a snarky comment and it was the people on the right who were actually seriously arguing about the vast importance of bayonets and horses in todays military. Maybe you should read back a few pages for a reminder.

Ironic that the republicans were just complaining about the Obama campaign being small and petty over the "binders" comment, while they are trying to turn Obama's statement into a gaffe. A statement that has been generally praised by the middle and left as being a clever response to Romney's backward policy stances.

[DaShi]

What's Romney's plan for a war with North Korea? Human wave tactics?

[regexcellent]

We need it.

Bottom line, we've staked future minesweeping capabilities on the hull. If we hadn't married ourselves to "speed is armor!" it wouldn't be so bad. Or "automate ALL THE THINGS" to the point that repair lockers won't be manned during general quarters.

What they should have done was accepted a design along the MEKO line, a baseline that had module compartments for during construction. Hell, any number of small European frigate/corvette designs would have been better. Swap our the Eurotronics with Freedomtronics and call it a day.

I'm all in favor of buying European corvettes and small frigates. They've been building small surface combatants for a while and probably have more experience in those kinds of hulls than we do.

How do Coast Guard cutters compare to the LCS in terms of survivability? They're a lot cheaper so to a relatively uninformed person such as myself they would naively appear to be a decent alternative.

[Hauldren Collider]

We are not going to be building 10 CVNs in the next 20 years, and it's questionable that we'll be building a total of 10 CVNs and LHAs in the next 20 years. It's a unfunded mandate.

Just like SSBN-X

Well, that sucks.

So, a new CVN comes in at around $7bil

Plus a new LHA ($3bil)

We're already at $10bil. Without a sub or DDG or CLF ship or LCS or other amphibs.

So the USN spreads the per unit costs in penny-packets across several fiscal years. This has the effect of an immediate cost savings even if it causes an overall increase in per-unit cost. The assumption being(probably correct) that no one in congress would be willing cancel a warship already under construction.


A side effect of this, by the way, is that we only had one major surface combatant commissioned last year(not even a LCS). One Burke. Guess how many major surface combatants the Chinese commissioned? You think a modern Chinese destroyer is the same kind of ****box produced even in the 90s?

The chinese ships are still ****boxes, even if they are slightly less ****ty ****boxes. I wouldn't put any faith in their nuclear subs. Their new aircraft carrier is a floating joke, by the way.

They are rapidly catching up in technology, however. I think that at some point in the next ten years we will need to ramp up ship construction from where it is currently at if we want to stay dominant in the pacific.

From what I can tell, our biggest weakness is basically minesweepers. Aren't our destroyers supposed to be ludicrously large/powerful for a destroyer?

Also what is your take on the Zumwalts?

[DaShi]

I think Ken knows more than you since all you seem to do is post one liners before running away. Speaking of which isn't it about time you turned tail and ran away again?

QFT. Ogie is just a troll and best ignored. If a thread on nuclear power comes up, he often has good contributions. But everything else he thinks he's an expert on just turn him into an angry troll.

[regexcellent]

Their new aircraft carrier is for training. They intend to have five aircraft carriers in the next 10 years or something like that. That's half our fleet. Incidentally, only half of our fleet is in the Pacific.

[DaShi]

Well, that sucks.


The chinese ships are still ****boxes, even if they are slightly less ****ty ****boxes. I wouldn't put any faith in their nuclear subs. Their new aircraft carrier is a floating joke, by the way.

They are rapidly catching up in technology, however. I think that at some point in the next ten years we will need to ramp up ship construction from where it is currently at if we want to stay dominant in the pacific.

From what I can tell, our biggest weakness is basically minesweepers. Aren't our destroyers supposed to be ludicrously large/powerful for a destroyer?

Also what is your take on the Zumwalts?

Cool, what are your sources on this? I'd like to learn more.

[Hauldren Collider]

DaShi, I'm not writing a school report, I'm have a discussion with Lonestar. I'm not trying to prove anything to you, so I really don't care if you think I haven't justified my statements.

[MRT144]

Well, that sucks.


The chinese ships are still ****boxes, even if they are slightly less ****ty ****boxes. I wouldn't put any faith in their nuclear subs. Their new aircraft carrier is a floating joke, by the way.

They are rapidly catching up in technology, however. I think that at some point in the next ten years we will need to ramp up ship construction from where it is currently at if we want to stay dominant in the pacific.

From what I can tell, our biggest weakness is basically minesweepers. Aren't our destroyers supposed to be ludicrously large/powerful for a destroyer?

Also what is your take on the Zumwalts?

Dominant in the Pacific for what purpose? To prevent Chinese encroachment into Taiwan? Under what scenario would you want to engage China in a war?

[DaShi]

DaShi, I'm not writing a school report, I'm have a discussion with Lonestar. I'm not trying to prove anything to you, so I really don't care if you think I haven't justified my statements.

I was just curious. No need to be so defense about it. I'd suggest checking the attitude.

[Lonestar]

Well, that sucks.


The chinese ships are still ****boxes, even if they are slightly less ****ty ****boxes. I wouldn't put any faith in their nuclear subs. Their new aircraft carrier is a floating joke, by the way.

haha, what?

The major surface combatants the Chinese are building (The Type 52Cs) are superior to anything in Europe that doesn't have AEGIS hanging on it, or is a Daring class DD. The PLAN of 2012 is not producing ****boxes anymore.

That carrier is hardly a floating joke. How'd you come to that conclusion? Did you use your crystal ball to see what sensors were installed and what main plant was installed? It'll end up carrying more aircraft than any carrier outside the US(they removed the SSM cells for more deck space), and the kicker is that this is their starter carrier. This is what they are learning with. Even if their from-scratch domestic carriers are exact copies of the Varyag they'll have a much more powerful carrier force than any other navy except the USN.

They are rapidly catching up in technology, however. I think that at some point in the next ten years we will need to ramp up ship construction from where it is currently at if we want to stay dominant in the pacific.

We need to do it now. It takes years for any US Yard(which exclusively build warships, by the way. All Chinese production is in civilian yards) to build a major combatant from start to finish.

From what I can tell, our biggest weakness is basically minesweepers. Aren't our destroyers supposed to be ludicrously large/powerful for a destroyer?

No. They pretty much fit the current description. Go look at Korean/Japanese/RN Destroyers, they are all in the same tonnage class.

Also what is your take on the Zumwalts?

Zumwalts are what happens you make a electronics engineer in charge of building a ship.