This is what they built with WTC steel

With what steel that wasn't sold to China, Northrop Grumman and contractors build a $1.68 billion ship that, according to officials, is a POS. The ship is better than those it is replacing, yet it's still a POS. So in other words, the military and Northrop get more $$ to keep the charade going.

Northrop Navy Ships ‘Not Survivable’ in Combat, Official Says

 

wooooo! proud to know my tax money payed for that big, beautiful, hunk of shit.

 

I spent 2 years on an LSD (landing Ship dock). We carried Marines and their personal equipment along with boats and helicopters that would transport them to shore. This was complimented by the LST (Landing Ship Transport), which has a flat bottom and carries Marines and their vehicles. The Flat bottom is designed to get close to shore so the vehicles can drive onto land. Of course, this was the late 60s.

The purpose of these ships is to land Marines and defend against land force fire from troops and tanks, not from heavy Naval and air fire at sea. Each type of ship has a specific purpose and specific artillery designed to carry out it's mission. This class of ships is not designed for Naval battle. In war, ships do not travel alone, they travel in groups with many different types of ships designed for different purposes.

The Class of ships to which this one belongs depend on other ships in the fleet for protection against heavy fire from the air or enemy ships. It is difficult to determine the effectiveness of this one with the little information given here, but the article does seem to give this class of ships more credit for at sea combat than they are designed for.

The point is that the worthiness of each ship should be determined by it's primary mission within the Fleet. Navy ships are not "stand alone" entities, they travel in groups with each one having it's own particular purpose and armaments designed for that purpose. I'm not saying the author is wrong, just that he left out important information with which to prove his point.

.

 

thank you for your unique insight !!

 

"Unique insight"?...I'd say it qualifies more as an "expert opinion" based his life experiences

 

this ship is going to be carrying the boeing osprey roto-tilt aircraft. from what i've read, they're about on par with the i-phone as far as getting the damn things to actually work. this whole think is like a military industrial complex casserole.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Antonio_(LPD-17)

It is pretty, though



.

 

looks somewhat art deco

 

On LSD..... for the WIN.. :2thumbsup:

 

This looks like an updated version of the USS Fort Snelling (LSD-30), that I served on.

Here are a series of pictures that might give an appreciation for the mission of these ships.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/12/1230.htm

.

 

A warship that does not work.

I think that is a wonderful thing to invest in. Perhaps they can spend more money making it work less.

I think if you must waste money on building war ships. Then it is a good idea to build war ships that do not work. Because if they do not work, people can not be killed.

 

mmm.. Ok when was the last time a navy vessel was attacked in combat? .. Are they looking for a water war soon?/ just curious..
The USS Cole was attacked.. gotcha, @.. ?? what else, I know the North Koreans are prepared for sea games, but our air superiority ends that..

Its just a fancy boat made of WTC is that all?..

 

I love this thread.

It kind of reads as this.

"Peace and love.... But our military can kick ass."

 

Yes-

Because as everyone knows, only the United States military kills people.

... not to mention the discussion affords you so many opportunities to scoff at Americans. It's a shame that the collective indifference to your opinion blunts its effect.

 

in Canada we dont build our own crap equipment for our troups ..we just buy the stuff other countries are trying to get rid of because its outdated

this is a sad but true fact

 

but my kill ratio in the Army wasnt high enough to cover my dental insurance, I should of read the contract more carefully....... :ack2:< imagine toofache..

 

This Is What Arsetralia Has Done For As Long As I Can Remember....

If The U.S.ofA Has A Warship, Or A Fighter Plane That Is Now Outdated,

Somehow They Convince *shouldn't be too hard* Our Government That

These Are The "Ants Pants".......And Guess What......We Buy The Crap.



Cheers Glen.

 

Maybe if you dropped dental- not wait, I think O'Bomber would fine you...

 

I know why they cant pull out of Afghanistan, if they cant even pull out teeth properly.. just fucked up the lower teeth, aka: Pakistan ..
thats terrible.....

 

...aaaaaand veering things slightly back on topic- shoddy equipment isn't exactly new with the military... as I recall there was some concerns over the issue of needing armored hummers lingered two years into the war in Iraq. I'm supposing our crack intelligence- you know, the same one that guaranteed we'd weapons of mass destruction (or maybe that was just Bush)- got blindsided by the use of IEDs in a style of combat we seem less than well prepared for. Seems eerily appropriate that materials salvaged from the ruins of a building targeted in an act used as partial and fraudulent justification for further destabilizing the area will be used in a manner that places members of the military at risk.