UK carrier policy: dumb or dumberer

[CountDeMoney]

 

[Tonitrus]

The obvious solution to this dilemma...is giant dirigible airborne fighter/bomber-carrier/fortresses.  Operated by the USAF, of course.



The whole floating-on-water thing is sooo 18th century.

[Ideologue]

We'd probably be better off just building "new" F-14s, F-16s, A-10s, F-15s, etc....

Or, one thousand new B-52s for a one thousand bomber raid.

[Brazen]

The obvious solution to this dilemma...is giant dirigible airborne fighter/bomber-carrier/fortresses.  Operated by the USAF, of course.

The LEMV, you mean? OK, they say it's only for surveillance, but just look at it:



http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/lemv/

"Unblinking stare" has to be one of my favourite military idioms.

[Ed Anger]

We'd probably be better off just building "new" F-14s, F-16s, A-10s, F-15s, etc....

Or, one thousand new B-52s for a one thousand bomber raid.

One thousand B-52's doing an ARC Light strike? I think I just creamed my pants.

[Neil]

We'd probably be better off just building "new" F-14s, F-16s, A-10s, F-15s, etc....

Or, one thousand new B-52s for a one thousand bomber raid.

Haven't we discovered that the B-52 is a pretty ineffective weapon?

[11B4V]

We'd probably be better off just building "new" F-14s, F-16s, A-10s, F-15s, etc....

Or, one thousand new B-52s for a one thousand bomber raid.

Haven't we discovered that the B-52 is a pretty ineffective weapon?

What does that have to do with anything? Go ask an Iraqi soldier from GW1.

[CountDeMoney]

We'd probably be better off just building "new" F-14s, F-16s, A-10s, F-15s, etc....

Or, one thousand new B-52s for a one thousand bomber raid.

Haven't we discovered that the B-52 is a pretty ineffective weapon?

I dunno...20 nuclear ALCMs under the wings still make them pretty effective.

And yeah, like 11Bravo said, ask the Vietnamese, Republican Guardsmen, Serbs and Taliban on the receiving end of a B-52 party platter.

[11B4V]

We'd probably be better off just building "new" F-14s, F-16s, A-10s, F-15s, etc....

Or, one thousand new B-52s for a one thousand bomber raid.

Haven't we discovered that the B-52 is a pretty ineffective weapon?

I dunno...20 nuclear ALCMs under the wings still make them pretty effective.

And yeah, like 11Bravo said, ask the Vietnamese, Republican Guardsmen, Serbs and Taliban on the receiving end of a B-52 party platter.

He's Canadian he doesnt understand.

[CountDeMoney]

He's Canadian he doesnt understand.

With a battleship fetish, no less.   Go fig.

[Neil]

I dunno...20 nuclear ALCMs under the wings still make them pretty effective.

No, that would make them even more useless.  What good is a nuclear weapon if you can't even use it?

And yeah, like 11Bravo said, ask the Vietnamese, Republican Guardsmen, Serbs and Taliban on the receiving end of a B-52 party platter.

The US lost the Vietnam War, where B-52s were used.  The US won World War II, where dreadnought battleships were used.

I rest my case.

[The Minsky Moment]

Weren't some of the Iowas used in Vietnam?

[11B4V]

I dunno...20 nuclear ALCMs under the wings still make them pretty effective.

No, that would make them even more useless.  What good is a nuclear weapon if you can't even use it?

And yeah, like 11Bravo said, ask the Vietnamese, Republican Guardsmen, Serbs and Taliban on the receiving end of a B-52 party platter.

The US lost the Vietnam War, where B-52s were used.  The US won World War II, where dreadnought battleships were used.

I rest my case.

Battleboats and there like were obsolete by the start of WW2. Nice try.

[CountDeMoney]

Battleboats and there like were obsolete by the start of WW2. Nice try.

Talking to a Canadian about defense is about as effective as talking to a gay Polish lawyer about, well, anything.

[Ed Anger]

Weren't some of the Iowas used in Vietnam?

In Gulf War 1 too. Sweet 16" action.