Navy is the most pointless service, boats are a thing of the past. Just sell that shit and use the money on anti carrier weapons and the rest on terminators.
There's not much you can do if you're in a shitty Land Rover and you get hit by a mine. Fair enough, there's plenty of people out there that have probably survived in that place using them vehicles. Does that mean that the vehicle is adequate? Or was it they just got lucky and didn't even get hit by anything. There's a difference between surviving because you were lucky, and surviving because you had sufficient protection...
Well
My opinion...
Well
My opinion...
I think we need to build things similar to the ion cannon from the CnC series. You never know when we'll be up against a massive rogue militant army or invaders from outer space.
Tbh building an Ion Cannon = shite idea. See it was the experiments by Nikolai Tesla with the Tesla Coil that made the Scrin notice Earth in the first place and launch the Tiberium meteorite at us. At least that was the original storyline until EA was all like LOLOLWESTWOOD and broke the storylines apart, fucked the canon and yeah...Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I think we need to build things similar to the ion cannon from the CnC series. You never know when we'll be up against a massive rogue militant army or invaders from outer space.
[/c&c nerd]
...
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Skynet did 9/11 as well, just to add some coals to the fire for them to warm uponFEOS wrote:
What makes you think it isn't?God Save the Queen wrote:
we just need skynet onlineFEOS wrote:
Nobody does. And nobody's planning on building any any time soon. Scrap all the carriers, give all the planes to the USAF and USMC, give the savings to the Army and USMC for equipment, then pay off a large chunk of the budget deficit with the left over.
Problem solved.
That's a conspiracy Dilbert or Ramm should run with, I think.
Okay, you want "deterrent value"? I think the entire US Army and USMC with shiny new optical sighted rifles are much more of a deterrent than ONE silly B-2.jord wrote:
Ya North.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
South Korea? I assume you meant N. Korea >_>jord wrote:
The point was about how they're a deterrent for your many enemies, Russia, South Korea, Iran, etc...
Yes a certain degree of deterrence is necessary but don't we (the US) have like 22 B-2s? 21 would have been just as well and, as RDX said, that money for one bomber could have equipped every soldier with new weaponry.
And if you went down that road of thinking. Why not 20? Actually why not 19? Hmm 18 and we can all get some dragonskinz. 17 and we could all get a pay rise. Etc.
Until you have 5, and they get raped by Russians and you all die.
If you want a clearer "deterrence value per dollar spent", then trade in the other 20 B-2's (2.1 Billion per = $42 Billion total) and get a mixup of the following:
Nimitz class aircraft carrier = $4.5 Billion (2 B-2's = 1 nuclear carrier.. hmm)
A-10 Aircraft = $12 million ($8.6 Billion would double the current number ever built, from 715 to 1430)
M-1a2 = $4.2 Million ($25 billion would double the current number in service with the Army and USMC - from 6000 to 12000)
Trident Nuclear Missile = $30 million each
BGM-109 Tomahawk = $600,000
Looking at deterrence value per dollar, and/or combat effectiveness per dollar - the B-2 is a waste.
The angle I'm concerned with is "most value per dollar".
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, to the OP..
If you're a professional soldier in a high-risk occupation (jumping out of planes, playing with C4 alot, getting deployed alot, etc) - and the "powers that be" can't be bothered to fund adequate equipment for you and your troops .. then it may be time to look into a career change.
A career soldier with that particular "duty, honor, country" twitch in his personality will happily spend a career risking his life for "king & country", as long as he has food & shelter for his family, decent equipment to fight with, and proper training & support from his government.
Start short-changing that, and you start losing really talented Operators to the private sector. Look at the bleed-out from SEALs and SF, to outfits like BlackWater or just to civilian jobs.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2008-11-01 10:33:25)
Id rather have a bunch of Bradleys with a bunch of bravos and a bunch of ammo
fucking bradleys are bad ass.
fucking bradleys are bad ass.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-11-01 10:39:53)
Whilst that appears to make sense, I'm putting my faith in the people that make the decisions all their life and it is their job after 20 years+ in the military.rdx-fx wrote:
Okay, you want "deterrent value"? I think the entire US Army and USMC with shiny new optical sighted rifles are much more of a deterrent than ONE silly B-2.jord wrote:
Ya North.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
South Korea? I assume you meant N. Korea >_>
Yes a certain degree of deterrence is necessary but don't we (the US) have like 22 B-2s? 21 would have been just as well and, as RDX said, that money for one bomber could have equipped every soldier with new weaponry.
And if you went down that road of thinking. Why not 20? Actually why not 19? Hmm 18 and we can all get some dragonskinz. 17 and we could all get a pay rise. Etc.
Until you have 5, and they get raped by Russians and you all die.
If you want a clearer "deterrence value per dollar spent", then trade in the other 20 B-2's (2.1 Billion per = $42 Billion total) and get a mixup of the following:
Nimitz class aircraft carrier = $4.5 Billion (2 B-2's = 1 nuclear carrier.. hmm)
A-10 Aircraft = $12 million ($8.6 Billion would double the current number ever built, from 715 to 1430)
M-1a2 = $4.2 Million ($25 billion would double the current number in service with the Army and USMC - from 6000 to 12000)
Trident Nuclear Missile = $30 million each
BGM-109 Tomahawk = $600,000
Looking at deterrence value per dollar, and/or combat effectiveness per dollar - the B-2 is a waste.
The angle I'm concerned with is "most value per dollar".
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, to the OP..
If you're a professional soldier in a high-risk occupation (jumping out of planes, playing with C4 alot, getting deployed alot, etc) - and the "powers that be" can't be bothered to fund adequate equipment for you and your troops .. then it may be time to look into a career change.
A career soldier with that particular "duty, honor, country" twitch in his personality will happily spend a career risking his life for "king & country", as long as he has food & shelter for his family, decent equipment to fight with, and proper training & support from his government.
Start short-changing that, and you start losing really talented Operators to the private sector. Look at the bleed-out from SEALs and SF, to outfits like BlackWater or just to civilian jobs.
Therein lies the problem.jord wrote:
Whilst that appears to make sense, I'm putting my faith in the people that make the decisions all their life and it is their job after 20 years+ in the military.
The 20+ year career military has little to no input on what major items their troops get.
It's the apropriations committees in Congress that determine where the money goes, and how much to whom.
And, too often, money is handed out according to "which senator's home state is this bit of kit manufactured in".
What about getting that money from other places, such as the extremely long R&D period we spend in the process of getting equipment. That would drop the price per plane/tank/gun/uniform/etc. The plane does serve a valuable role.
You still a fan of Bradley's eh?God Save the Queen wrote:
Id rather have a bunch of Bradleys with a bunch of bravos and a bunch of ammo
fucking bradleys are bad ass.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Its not like that in the MOD, AFAIK.RDX-FX wrote:
And, too often, money is handed out according to "which senator's home state is this bit of kit manufactured in".
Its their job to organise procurement to provide suitable kit for the army.
Big ticket items get decided by govt, but lower level stuff by the MOD - who seem to have screwed up everything they've touched for decades.
Everyone knows that, 9/11 Was carried out by skynet hacking inti the auto-pilots of the passenger jets, and of course firing the missile which hit the pentagon.MOAB wrote:
Skynet did 9/11 as well, just to add some coals to the fire for them to warm upon
Bin Laden and Cheney are 100% digital creations no-one has actually ever seen, created by skynet to fool us into a world war between Christians and Moslems.
The robot-warriors created in the autonomous factories will take care of the survivors.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Whatever...jord wrote:
Navy is the most pointless service, boats are a thing of the past. Just sell that shit and use the money on anti carrier weapons and the rest on terminators.
oh and...
*naval power is clutch. you know it.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-11-01 23:16:46)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Wait.. WHAT?jord wrote:
Navy is the most pointless service, boats are a thing of the past. Just sell that shit and use the money on anti carrier weapons and the rest on terminators.
Not on a planet that's 75% covered in water.
Which planet are you living on again?
I figured the UK procurement system was equally as screwed up as ours.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its not like that in the MOD, AFAIK.
Its their job to organise procurement to provide suitable kit for the army.
Big ticket items get decided by govt, but lower level stuff by the MOD - who seem to have screwed up everything they've touched for decades.
I just wrote about the one I knew, rather than guess about yours.
Nothing is resistant to mines. Not even tanks. Though I would assume you meant their should be top priority of the personnel safety when under attack.Dilbert_X wrote:
This does seem pathetic, we've been there for ~5 years now and we still don't have enough mine-resistant vehicles?An SAS reservist commander in Afghanistan has resigned over what he calls "chronic underinvestment" in troops' equipment, reports say.
The commander - quoted in The Daily Telegraph - says ministers have ignored his warnings about the safety of the Army's Snatch Land Rovers.
The vehicle has been criticised because its armour is not designed to withstand roadside bombs.
The Ministry of Defence said equipping personnel was "a clear priority".
The commander is reported to have blamed a lack of adequate resources for the deaths of four service personnel, including Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first British female soldier to die in Afghanistan.
They were killed on 17 June when their Snatch Land Rover struck a roadside bomb in Helmand Province earlier this year.
In his resignation letter, he is understood to have accused ministers of "gross negligence" in allowing soldiers to go into battle without adequate resources.
The lack of equipment, he is reported to have said, was "Cavalier at best. Criminal at worst".
Er wut?Nothing is resistant to mines. Not even tanks.
There are many levels of mine resistance, and many different vehicles available.
And I'm pretty sure survivability against mines and IEDs in an M1A1 or a short-wheelbase land-rover are a bit different.
eg http://www.defense-update.com/products/m/mrap.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … mrap_N.htm
Er yes, eg we've had 8 Chinooks in a hanger for 7 years and still can't work out how to get them to fly at night or when its hot.RDX-FX wrote:
I figured the UK procurement system was equally as screwed up as ours.
Hot nights, forget it.
http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=6129
Navies are useful, but now solely as floating airfields and for delivering the army.
We've known this since WW2, and haven't built any Dreadnoughts since.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-02 01:08:14)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
When Your leaders gives You old equipment because they don't care about You then DON'T BRAG ABOUT IT AND DON'T VOTE FOR THE F**KERS!
You can fly over water, in a faster, more versatile machine.rdx-fx wrote:
Wait.. WHAT?jord wrote:
Navy is the most pointless service, boats are a thing of the past. Just sell that shit and use the money on anti carrier weapons and the rest on terminators.
Not on a planet that's 75% covered in water.
Which planet are you living on again?I figured the UK procurement system was equally as screwed up as ours.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its not like that in the MOD, AFAIK.
Its their job to organise procurement to provide suitable kit for the army.
Big ticket items get decided by govt, but lower level stuff by the MOD - who seem to have screwed up everything they've touched for decades.
I just wrote about the one I knew, rather than guess about yours.
Aircraft, they're the future.
Indeed? And how much cargo can an aircraft carry compared to a ship? And which is more cost effective?jord wrote:
You can fly over water, in a faster, more versatile machine.
Aircraft, they're the future.
My whole point is in reference to a combat role and not a logistics role.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
Indeed? And how much cargo can an aircraft carry compared to a ship? And which is more cost effective?jord wrote:
You can fly over water, in a faster, more versatile machine.
Aircraft, they're the future.
True, but again, you will have to move stuff around. And how long can an aircraft loiter over an area to defend the cargo ships, as opposed to say a destroyer or a frigate? IMO you need the navy to protect your supply lines...jord wrote:
My whole point is in reference to a combat role and not a logistics role.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
Indeed? And how much cargo can an aircraft carry compared to a ship? And which is more cost effective?jord wrote:
You can fly over water, in a faster, more versatile machine.
Aircraft, they're the future.
Much easier to have force projection with a carrier sitting of another countries shore then having planes fly 18 hour missions 24 hours a day.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
True, but again, you will have to move stuff around. And how long can an aircraft loiter over an area to defend the cargo ships, as opposed to say a destroyer or a frigate? IMO you need the navy to protect your supply lines...jord wrote:
My whole point is in reference to a combat role and not a logistics role.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
Indeed? And how much cargo can an aircraft carry compared to a ship? And which is more cost effective?
As much as congress spends on bullshit, we wouldn't really need to cut a B2 bomber to fund a rifle program.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
RDX, the problem with your experiment is you expect the tools running this country to actually have some fucking sense.
The cannon got broken in RA2, when Westwood was still Westwood. CnC3 didn't mess wit the cannon at all, despite being made when Westwood was EALA.Flecco wrote:
Tbh building an Ion Cannon = shite idea. See it was the experiments by Nikolai Tesla with the Tesla Coil that made the Scrin notice Earth in the first place and launch the Tiberium meteorite at us. At least that was the original storyline until EA was all like LOLOLWESTWOOD and broke the storylines apart, fucked the canon and yeah...Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I think we need to build things similar to the ion cannon from the CnC series. You never know when we'll be up against a massive rogue militant army or invaders from outer space.
[/c&c nerd]
...
Of course. Why would you need to build giant battleships when a single submarine can do the job? If defending anything, surface ships should be focusing on carriers, not cannon-laden behemoths.Dilbert_X wrote:
Navies are useful, but now solely as floating airfields and for delivering the army.
We've known this since WW2, and haven't built any Dreadnoughts since.
However, you forgot off-shore missile bombardment and the occasional anti-piracy maneuver.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-11-02 09:42:52)