LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 02-01-2010, 08:01 AM   #1
vladekad

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
445
Senior Member
Default Dramatic shift in Pentagon's thinking to align themselves with what I said
This is good news for people who thought Iraq was a smart use of American military power.
vladekad is offline


Old 02-01-2010, 09:27 AM   #2
RilmAlime67

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
470
Senior Member
Default
You should get on the phone to Gore.
RilmAlime67 is offline


Old 02-01-2010, 10:18 AM   #3
Slonopotam845

Join Date
Jan 2006
Posts
5,251
Senior Member
Default
He should be made aware of where he's gone wrong.
Slonopotam845 is offline


Old 02-01-2010, 10:26 AM   #4
ferelrossi

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
414
Senior Member
Default
These are mutually contradictory. Ice is less dense than water. Reduced ice in the Arctic = lower sea levels.


ferelrossi is offline


Old 02-01-2010, 10:30 AM   #5
oxinsnepe

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
489
Senior Member
Default
Don't mind NYE. He's just a retard.
oxinsnepe is offline


Old 02-01-2010, 10:50 AM   #6
MineOffedOvex

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
446
Senior Member
Default
Don't mind NYE. He's just a retard.
Still angry, I see.
MineOffedOvex is offline


Old 02-01-2010, 11:27 AM   #7
Fhgzmftq

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
352
Senior Member
Default
Seems they're more concerned about aligning themselves with AGW (Al Gore Warming) than UAV.
Fhgzmftq is offline


Old 02-01-2010, 02:29 PM   #8
stunnyravytal

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
592
Senior Member
Default
As for UAVs, hear hear, this is something I've also been banging on about for years and years. It's amazing that the so-called military experts have only just figured out these sorts of needs.

Or at least, it's not, military bureaucracy is appalling these days - at least from a UK MOD POV. Decision making to implementation is glacial. When that decision has finally trickled down, it's usually out of date as military needs have moved on, usually resulting in a massive waste of money.

For example, this decision about UAVs, why is it going to take 3 years to increase an existing tech by 10 machines when the tech is needed NOW? It's like the UK need for helicopters, again for some reason it's going to take years just to get the helicopters the morons who make the decisions forgot to make sure we had enough of in the first place! How long does it take to build a helicopter these days FFS!?

Personally, IMO, the best decision we could make militarily is cut out about 90% of the bureaucratic cancer of the stuffed suits who do nothing but **** things up anyway, give them each a gun and some ammo, and send them human wave style at the Taliban positions!

Anyway, UAVs!
stunnyravytal is offline


Old 02-01-2010, 06:08 PM   #9
Tam04xa

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
561
Senior Member
Default
For example, this decision about UAVs, why is it going to take 3 years to increase an existing tech by 10 machines when the tech is needed NOW? It's like the UK need for helicopters, again for some reason it's going to take years just to get the helicopters the morons who make the decisions forgot to make sure we had enough of in the first place! How long does it take to build a helicopter these days FFS!? 1.) If I had to guess it is about a year, and of course the production line has a capacity.

2.) It sounded like they said OVER a theater by 10, which means increasing available assets so that there is the ability to have ten more in the air at any one time. That means far more than ten in total as you will always have some being used for training or down for maintinence of whatever.

Adding 10-20 airfames the size of a Predator in three years from a brand new requirment on top of a what was already being procured is actually very fast by any standard.
Tam04xa is offline


Old 02-01-2010, 10:33 PM   #10
adolfadsermens

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
445
Senior Member
Default
It's pretty funny that you are so often wrong when you try to tear down other people.
adolfadsermens is offline


Old 02-02-2010, 02:20 AM   #11
SHUSIATULSE

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
376
Senior Member
Default
What are you on about, junior?
SHUSIATULSE is offline


Old 02-02-2010, 03:05 AM   #12
Numbiydq

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
568
Senior Member
Default
What are you on about, junior?
The Arctic ice is floating in water. A floating object displaces its weight in water. When ice floating in water melts, it adds its weight to the total mass of water, and the water level remains unchanged.

You should have learned this in second grade when the teacher explained that 9/10 of an iceberg is underwater.
Numbiydq is offline


Old 02-02-2010, 03:46 AM   #13
VewCoorkPow

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
408
Senior Member
Default
The Arctic ice is floating in water. A floating object displaces its weight in water. When ice floating in water melts, it adds its weight to the total mass of water, and the water level remains unchanged.

You should have learned this in second grade when the teacher explained that 9/10 of an iceberg is underwater.
Dude. I went to school in Northern Canada. Right after they mention the old guy in the tub, teachers begin talking about ice and water.

Now why don't you go chase Modius on a freeway. Your disengenuous hectoring is boring.
VewCoorkPow is offline


Old 02-02-2010, 03:58 AM   #14
Adeniinteme

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
591
Senior Member
Default
You are so cute when you make a large phalic symbol of yourself. Cute like a diseased rat.
Adeniinteme is offline


Old 02-02-2010, 07:23 AM   #15
KRbGA0Bg

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
485
Senior Member
Default
Yeah, let's face it, NYE isn't clever enough for post #4 to be sarcasm.
KRbGA0Bg is offline


Old 02-02-2010, 07:41 AM   #16
LottiFurmann

Join Date
Jan 2008
Posts
4,494
Senior Member
Default
1.) If I had to guess it is about a year, and of course the production line has a capacity.
If it's the aircraft of the future, surely they can confidently increase capacity in the knowledge that it will be used in the future.

2.) It sounded like they said OVER a theater by 10, which means increasing available assets so that there is the ability to have ten more in the air at any one time. That means far more than ten in total as you will always have some being used for training or down for maintinence of whatever. Ah, OK, that makes sense. I was thinking of just the extra 10 without factoring in those extra numbers.

Adding 10-20 airfames the size of a Predator in three years from a brand new requirment on top of a what was already being procured is actually very fast by any standard. I still have a problem with this. You're talking about manufacturing 3-7 machines extra per year - that still seems incredibly slow IMO for a tech that saves US lives during a sort of quasi war footing! I know it's not a WWII production line, and that these are advanced bits of kit, but this seems more akin to a cottage industry...

Which is my point really. They've had 8 years to realise what a ****ing good idea UAVs are and yet they're still ordering them on a practically individual basis!
LottiFurmann is offline


Old 02-02-2010, 03:03 PM   #17
tropicana

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
506
Senior Member
Default
They'd need to change some of their entertainers into engineers to increase their hammers. Or switch back to slavery and whip the helicopters.
tropicana is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

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

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity