# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  $13 billion and cant fight

## Montana

U.S. Navy's new $13B aircraft carrier can't fight  - CNNPolitics.com Amazing how well things are going. :Angry20:

----------

Knightkore (07-25-2016)

----------


## Jim Rockford

> U.S. Navy's new $13B aircraft carrier can't fight  - CNNPolitics.com Amazing how well things are going.


 Butt the rear admirals can throw a hell of a gay party. Things are swell.

----------

Montana (07-25-2016)

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

*  "Cost Overuns "  * The history of the US Military. It never fails.   1-800-GAO - IGLE  ( Inspector General Law Enforcement )



   :Joe

----------

LFD (07-25-2016)

----------


## Northern Rivers

The Nation's broke. The military is showing depreciation like an old building.

Mr Trump will fix this. IMO...I've always considered the man a one horse show...the economy.

After WW1 and WW2...Europe...and Japan...were in ruins. They rebuilt their infrastructure. The USA didn't. It became 1950 vs 1905 infrastructure. Now? America is about to retool and be great again. It'll be 2020 vs 1950. This next century will be another American Century. I'm confident of that.....

----------

Jim Scott (07-25-2016),Montana (07-25-2016)

----------


## Taxcutter

As much as I'd love to hang this on Hussein Obama, anytime you introduce new technology into weapons systems there are bugs.   The first ship in its class is always the most expensive.

The alternative is to do like we did in 1941 - go to war with obsolete stuff.

The top-heavy rank structure - we have more admirals today with a 200 ship Navy than we had in 1945 with a 6,000 ship Navy - is a valid concern but a separate issue altogether.

The really big issue is that the FARs are screaming for reform.

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-25-2016),sooda (07-25-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> U.S. Navy's new $13B aircraft carrier can't fight  - CNNPolitics.com Amazing how well things are going.


This carrier is a new class of carriers that are masterpieces of technological advancements and is the most prolific warship ever constructed. Not too surprising that it is behind schedule.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> As much as I'd love to hang this on Hussein Obama, anytime you introduce new technology into weapons systems there are bugs.   The first ship in its class is always the most expensive.
> 
> The alternative is to do like we did in 1941 - go to war with obsolete stuff.
> 
> The top-heavy rank structure - we have more admirals today with a 200 ship Navy than we had in 1945 with a 6,000 ship Navy - is a valid concern but a separate issue altogether.
> 
> The really big issue is that the FARs are screaming for reform.


Very good point. This is the first of the new carriers that will replace the latest model constructed in 1975. That is a long time without a significant upgrade.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

*5 Things You Might Not Know About CVN 78/Ford Class*

BY U.S. NAVY
  AUGUST 4, 2015*POSTED IN:* AVIATION, INSIDE THE NAVY
*Test your knowledge about CVN 78 and the Ford-class of aircraft carriers with these five things that you may not know:*

*1) USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is the lead ship in the Ford-class of aircraft carrier, the first new class in more than 40 years. CVN 78 will be delivered in spring of 2016 as the fleet numerical replacement to CVN 65 (USS Enterprise). Follow on Ford class carriers will begin the phased replacement of Nimitz-class carriers.*




*2) Because the island is smaller and farther aft than the Nimitz‐class, increasing space for flight deck operations and aircraft maintenance, CVN 78 is capable of generating 33 percent more sorties (flight missions) per day than Nimitz‐class carriers.*


*3) An Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), similar to the system that powers many of todays roller coasters, replaces steam catapults, enabling a smoother launch and capability to support the air wing of the future.*




*4) The Ford class design enables the Navy to operate the ship with less manpower, saving the Navy more than $4 billion in total ownership costs over each ships 50‐year life, when compared to todays Nimitz class aircraft carriers.*

*5) CVN 78 is the first aircraft carrier to make a significant leap to electrical power, with three times the generating capacity of Nimitz class to allow replacing legacy steam‐powered systems and providing margins and ship weight allowance to incorporate future technologies.*


5 Things You Might Not Know About CVN 78/Ford Class | Navy Live

----------


## MrMike

Not so sure I like #3

I have my reasons

----------

Knightkore (07-25-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Not so sure I like #3
> 
> I have my reasons


You have to admit that the damn thing is as impressive as-all-get-out, Mike!

----------


## MrMike

> You have to admit that the damn thing is as impressive as-all-get-out, Mike!


I absolutely agree and do think it's an incredible ship.

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-25-2016)

----------


## Kodiak

> *  "Cost Overuns "  * The history of the US Military. It never fails.   1-800-GAO - IGLE  ( Inspector General Law Enforcement )
> 
> 
> :Joe


No shit, private industry LOVES government contracts as they sometimes pay nearly twice what they would make on the outside. I live near a Navy base and know guys that lick their chops if they can get a contract on base. These ships and anything government could be made much cheaper if they paid civilian wages.

----------

Montana (07-25-2016),MrMike (07-25-2016)

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> I live near a Navy base and know guys that lick their chops if they can get a contract on base.



  Enlist in the Military. Pick a Military Specialty that is technical such as - Aircraft Avionics, Medical Fields ( radiology specialist as just one ) , systems maintenance ( Tank vehicles = lasers, electrical systems...ect ), radio communications.....and a host of others.

  Spend 4 years in that career field, then get out of the Military. Go back to that branch of the Military as a civilian contractor. 

  Spend 4 years as an MP / Security Forces / Sergeant at Arms  ; then get out of the Military ans go to college - Get a 4 year degree......or a law Degree would be better - then go back into the Military as a Civilian ( Army - Marines - Air Force - Navy ) as a Special Agent ( Army CID - Navy & Marines NCIS - Air Force OSI ). 

   People the US Military world over spend time active duty, only to get out and get a Civilian Contractors Job. Your prior service counts as retirement, you have free healthcare, and while the regular Troop is working weekends and holidays.....for the most part; the contractor is off. And you make more money doing the same thing as a civilian, than you did as a Military person - and work less hours ; as "GIs" work holidays and weekends.


       :Joe  ( former US Army )

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> I absolutely agree and do think it's an incredible ship.






Wow....Just.Fucking.Wow.

----------


## Kodiak

> Enlist in the Military. Pick a Military Specialty that is technical such as - Aircraft Avionics, Medical Fields ( radiology specialist as just one ) , systems maintenance ( Tank vehicles = lasers, electrical systems...ect ), radio communications.....and a host of others.
> 
>   Spend 4 years in that career field, then get out of the Military. Go back to that branch of the Military as a civilian contractor. 
> 
>   Spend 4 years as an MP / Security Forces / Sergeant at Arms  ; then get out of the Military ans go to college - Get a 4 year degree......or a law Degree would be better - then go back into the Military as a Civilian ( Army - Marines - Air Force - Navy ) as a Special Agent ( Army CID - Navy & Marines NCIS - Air Force OSI ). 
> 
>    People the US Military world over spend time active duty, only to get out and get a Civilian Contractors Job. Your prior service counts as retirement, you have free healthcare, and while the regular Troop is working weekends and holidays.....for the most part; the contractor is off. And you make more money doing the same thing as a civilian, than you did as a Military person - and work less hours ; as "GIs" work holidays and weekends.
> 
> 
>        :Joe  ( former US Army )


I'm betting close to 30% of this small town fill that bill and sitting pretty with FAT retirements.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

4-5 billion in savings to operate over the life of the ship. 

It's design requires 600 fewer crew members, *600 FEWER.*

----------


## MrMike

> Wow....Just.Fucking.Wow.


the bottom part (bulbous bow) gets Davo all puckered and excited...   :Cool20:

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-25-2016)

----------


## teeceetx

As far as the magnetic catapult, just hire the techs at SIX FLAGS, for the elevator problem, ask OTIS ELEVATOR, they'll get it working in no time at all.

----------

Montana (07-25-2016),Puzzling Evidence (07-25-2016)

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> I'm betting close to 30% of this small town fill that bill and sitting pretty with FAT retirements.



 Its not that simple.

  People in their job who are currently still Military have to put up with at ton of hurdles. One example.

  Each Officer for the Army and Marine Corp ( I was Army Enlisted ) has a branch that they are assigned to. Infantry Branch Officers go to Infantry Units. Armor Branch Folks go to tank units. Finance Branch folks go to Finance and Accounting units. You get the idea.

 Once is awhile, not too often - you will get a person "branched" Armor, and they will somewhere in their career go supervise a bunch of enlisted accountants in finance, having not a clue about numbers and digits. Some Engineering Captain, will supervise a company ( about 300 people ) of Aviation personnel ; and not know a thing about helicopters or jets. Believe me, it is a nightmare.

 Then, yes....even as a lowly Enlisted person ; you have to put up with the politics. Contractors do to....but not as much as a wide scale basis. I knew one court martial in Korea that was cancelled, just because of whom the defendant had as a US Senator. Instead, the "defendants" court martial was degraded to a Company Grade Article 15. All over a US Senator. 

  Contractors have the "hub-bub" and "daily grind", but they put up with less "BS" than Joe Q GI. 80% or better, of the contractors - love their career field and working for Uncle Sam. They just hate the midlevel and lower level leadership decisions - that the Military personnel have to face.


   :Joe

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-25-2016)

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> the bottom part (bulbous bow) gets Davo all puckered and excited...



  I don't have a clue, but just a thought.

  Electromagnetic catapults and elevators. If an Electromagnetic Pulse was sent out ( Nuclear Explosion as one example ) would the catapults and elevators become inoperable? 


        :Joe

----------

MrMike (07-25-2016),Sled Dog (07-25-2016)

----------


## MrMike

> I don't have a clue, but just a thought.
> 
>   Electromagnetic catapults and elevators. If an Electromagnetic Pulse was sent out ( Nuclear Explosion as one example ) would the catapults and elevators become inoperable? 
> 
> 
>         :Joe

----------

Knightkore (07-25-2016)

----------


## Montana

lol you have an excuse for failure .Amazing.


> This carrier is a new class of carriers that are masterpieces of technological advancements and is the most prolific warship ever constructed. Not too surprising that it is behind schedule.

----------


## Kodiak

> Its not that simple.
> 
>   People in their job who are currently still Military have to put up with at ton of hurdles. One example.
> 
>   Each Officer for the Army and Marine Corp ( I was Army Enlisted ) has a branch that they are assigned to. Infantry Branch Officers go to Infantry Units. Armor Branch Folks go to tank units. Finance Branch folks go to Finance and Accounting units. You get the idea.
> 
>  Once is awhile, not too often - you will get a person "branched" Armor, and they will somewhere in their career go supervise a bunch of enlisted accountants in finance, having not a clue about numbers and digits. Some Engineering Captain, will supervise a company ( about 300 people ) of Aviation personnel ; and not know a thing about helicopters or jets. Believe me, it is a nightmare.
> 
>  Then, yes....even as a lowly Enlisted person ; you have to put up with the politics. Contractors do to....but not as much as a wide scale basis. I knew one court martial in Korea that was cancelled, just because of whom the defendant had as a US Senator. Instead, the "defendants" court martial was degraded to a Company Grade Article 15. All over a US Senator. 
> ...


My original post was just to relay the sheer waste of the government and how ships like this could be built cheaper if the government was smart.   I have worked on civilian pickup trucks from the base with 5k miles on them that are literally beat to shit and look like they have 200k miles on them.  From what I have seen, government workers have zero respect for taxpayer dollars.
Sorry for the hijack.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> lol you have an excuse for failure .Amazing.


And you have nothing, utterly nothing save your pompous and unintelligible snark. 

You are desperately attempting to use this story as a way to bad-mouth Obama and you haven't demonstrated anything except for your fondness of embarrassingly partisan, bombastic, threads.

----------


## Montana

Your number of post and thanks says  lot of your support on any topic.  lol


> And you have nothing, utterly nothing save your pompous and unintelligible snark. 
> 
> You are desperately attempting to use this story as a way to bad-mouth Obama and you haven't demonstrated anything except for your fondness of embarrassingly partisan, bombastic, threads.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Your number of post and thanks says  lot of your support on any topic.  lol


I'm not everyone's cup of tea, Mike. You ever 'thank' any of my posts? Kind of what I figured. You see, some slights are actually endorsements, depending upon who authors them.

xxx ooo LOL.




*"To some I am a blessing, to others a curse."*

----------


## teeceetx

Leave it to our government to approve a super carrier with electro mag catapults that don't work and elevators that don't work!  Whose head will roll?  Nobody's.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Leave it to our government to approve a super carrier with electro mag catapults that don't work and elevators that don't work!  Whose head will roll?  Nobody's.


The elevators don't work? That effing Obama....

----------


## LFD

> Leave it to our government to approve a super carrier with electro mag catapults that don't work and elevators that don't work!  Whose head will roll?  Nobody's.


The military is the biggest money pit in our nation.

Anything that sounds cool has billions of taxpayer dollars dumped into its research and development. The majority of projects fail or are absorbed.

----------


## LFD

The pentagon gets too much leeway. 

They come out with new fancy projects every year, which are way more whimsical than common sense. All the bureaucratic generals see is "Oh, wouldn't that be cool!"

----------


## Jeffrey

> This carrier is a new class of carriers that are masterpieces of technological advancements and is the most prolific warship ever constructed. Not too surprising that it is behind schedule.


It seems to me that the feds are putting too many eggs in one basket, so to speak.  If such a ship should take a disabling hit or be sunk then that 
would be a big blow to our capabilities.  It seems to me that having say four less costly ships for the same bucks would be a wiser move from a survival standpoint.  That way if one is taken out then there are still three to carry on the fight.

----------


## LFD

> It seems to me that the feds are putting too many eggs in one basket, so to speak.  If such a ship should take a disabling hit or be sunk then that 
> would be a big blow to our capabilities.  It seems to me that having say four less costly ships for the same bucks would be a wiser move from a survival standpoint.  That way if one is taken out then there are still three to carry on the fight.


I am going to put this in perspective by comparing it with other aircraft classes.

 Nimitz costs 4 billion to produce. Charles De Gaulle and Queen Elizabeth classes cost less than 3 billion. Admiral Kuznetsov costs less than one billion. 

There is nothing that groundbreaking in this new class that could justify even an extra billion in expenditure. My guess is that most of this 13 billion was for research and development.

----------


## tiny1

> I am going to put this in perspective by comparing it with other aircraft classes.
> 
>  Nimitz costs 4 billion to produce. Charles De Gaulle and Queen Elizabeth classes cost less than 3 billion. Admiral Kuznetsov costs less than one billion. 
> 
> There is nothing that groundbreaking in this new class that could justify even an extra billion in expenditure. My guess is that most of this 13 billion was for research and development.


Well, your guess is........just a guess.
1 Billion more.  Costs 4 billion less through its lifetime to operate, which yields 3 billion PROFIT.  Plus, it is awesome.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Well, your guess is........just a guess.
> 1 Billion more.  Costs 4 billion less through its lifetime to operate, which yields 3 billion PROFIT.  Plus, it is awesome.


... And can fly 33 more sorties...

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> I am going to put this in perspective by comparing it with other aircraft classes.
> 
>  Nimitz costs 4 billion to produce. Charles De Gaulle and Queen Elizabeth classes cost less than 3 billion. Admiral Kuznetsov costs less than one billion. 
> 
> *There is nothing that groundbreaking in this new class that could justify even an extra billion in expenditure*. My guess is that most of this 13 billion was for research and development.


Hog wash! Did you not watch the videos?

----------


## LFD

> Hog wash! Did you not watch the videos?


Why don't you tell me the groundbreaking technology that justifies this one aircraft carrier costing the same amount of money as 13 Russian aircraft carriers

----------


## LFD

> Well, your guess is........just a guess.
> 1 Billion more.  Costs 4 billion less through its lifetime to operate, which yields 3 billion PROFIT.


Right off the bat, I will call bullshit on that claim.

We are talking about fuel and maintenance here. It does not use cheaper materials or cheaper oil quality. 

And there is no such thing as making profit on pure expenditure. 




> Plus, it is awesome.


This is how the pentagon makes decisions.

That is why the department of defense is such a money pit of overspending.

----------


## LFD

They advertise dozens of these shit projects every year. 

Exoskeleton armour, weightless assault rifles, and death rays. They all fail to meet standards, and are always judged as impractical and not cost efficient.

Anybody remember these?

USS-Freedom-130222-N-DR144-174-crop.jpg

Or these?



And worst of all this? 



No one seems to learn or care.

----------


## Mainecoons

Hey, you gotta admit they look cool.  Isn't it a shame Consumer's Reports doesn't rate the Military Industrial Complex?

----------

LFD (07-25-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Why don't you tell me the groundbreaking technology that justifies this one aircraft carrier costing the same amount of money as 13 Russian aircraft carriers


Not unless you're going to buy one, because I don't care to sell you one, otherwise.

----------


## LFD

> Not unless you're going to buy one, because I don't care to sell you one, otherwise.


It's fine if you do not want to have a discussion. 

Just want to let you know that.

----------

Mainecoons (07-25-2016)

----------


## Montana

I thank those that I agree with that should explain my lack of  thanks to yours.


> I'm not everyone's cup of tea, Mike. You ever 'thank' any of my posts? Kind of what I figured. You see, some slights are actually endorsements, depending upon who authors them.
> 
> xxx ooo LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"To some I am a blessing, to others a curse."*

----------


## Mainecoons

I think he finds trolling and covert disrespect to be more entertaining.

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-25-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> I thank those that I agree with that should explain my lack of  thanks to yours.


Thanks, bruh! Back to trolling....

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> It's fine if you do not want to have a discussion. 
> 
> Just want to let you know that.


Oh, just stop.

----------


## Jeffrey

> The Nation's broke. The military is showing depreciation like an old building.
> 
> Mr Trump will fix this. IMO...I've always considered the man a one horse show...the economy.
> 
> After WW1 and WW2...Europe...and Japan...were in ruins. They rebuilt their infrastructure. The USA didn't. It became 1950 vs 1905 infrastructure. Now? America is about to retool and be great again. It'll be 2020 vs 1950. This next century will be another American Century. I'm confident of that.....


Where will he get the money, by robbing Peter to pay Paul?

----------


## Jeffrey

> Not unless you're going to buy one, because I don't care to sell you one, otherwise.


I think the Ruskies do a credible job with some very rudimentary equipment. It is the people that make the difference.

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-26-2016)

----------


## Sled Dog

> And you have nothing, utterly nothing save your pompous and unintelligible snark. 
> 
> You are desperately attempting to use this story as a way to bad-mouth Obama and you haven't demonstrated anything except for your fondness of embarrassingly partisan, bombastic, threads.


Hello?

Why do you believe they're all upset about the boat not meeting it's readiness date?

Your Traitor King can't use it as pro-HC propaganda if it's working like a French or Chinese built carrier.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Well, your guess is........just a guess.
> 1 Billion more.  Costs 4 billion less through its lifetime to operate, which yields 3 billion PROFIT.  Plus, it is awesome.



Ummm...it cost 13 billion.  No idea where you got "one billion more" from.

Re-read the post you quoted.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I am going to put this in perspective by comparing it with other aircraft classes.
> 
>  Nimitz costs 4 billion to produce. Charles De Gaulle and Queen Elizabeth classes cost less than 3 billion. Admiral Kuznetsov costs less than one billion. 
> 
> There is nothing that groundbreaking in this new class that could justify even an extra billion in expenditure. My guess is that most of this 13 billion was for research and development.


Naw, the cost of goonionized labor has skyrocketed.

And it's goonion built, so you didn't expect it to work the first time, did you?

All that not-kidding aside, I have decades of experience building one-of-a-kind vehicles, and there's only one way to make sure the thing works the first time.

Meetings.

Meetings about the simplest things.   

Should that bolt be a regular 1/4-24 UNF 170 ksi socket head cap screw, or should it be a 1/4-24 UNF 170 ksi bolt with a reduced head?

Believe it or not, that level of detailed discussion and consideration is what it takes to make the project work right the first time.

FYI, there was NO discussion on the 5/16-18 bolt...so naturally they picked the wrong one.   And it was awkward to get at so they stripped the socket.   Ooops...  and then it turned out that a simple 70 ksi CRES bolt with a lot lower torque would have worked just fine.

No discussion.

No analysis prior to drawing release.

No workee.

----------


## LFD

> Your Traitor King can't use it as pro-HC propaganda if it's working like a French or Chinese built carrier.


China doesn't have an aircraft carrier. They only have a commissioned Admiral Kuznetsov made by Russia they use for training. 

That is why this new aircraft carrier is so controversial. We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, and there was a faction that was vocal against further production.

Innovation is driven by necessity. This was not.

----------


## Sled Dog

Hiller Rotor Cycle.

rotorcycle.jpg

It was intended to be used as an drop-in escape vehicle for shot-down pilots.

But it's a helicopter.  The rotor system is the biggest single cost on rotary-wing aircraft, and that cost didn't get cut much on this aircraft.

Another flaw is that....you have to know how to fly a helicopter to fly a helicopter out of enemy lines...so all those shot down pilots would have to be trained TWICE.

And the final flaw was...it didn't fly very fast and would be easy to shoot down.

A million bucks or so invested, none purchased.

----------

LFD (07-25-2016)

----------


## Sled Dog

> China doesn't have an aircraft carrier. They only have a commissioned Admiral Kuznetsov made by Russia they use for training. 
> 
> That is why this new aircraft carrier is so controversial. We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, and there was a faction that was vocal against further production.
> 
> Innovation is driven by necessity. This was not.


Does China run the damn thing?

Then it's THEIRS.    They get to pay Russia for it when we sink it, don't they?

And it was years before they figured out how to actually land airplanes on it.

As for the rest of what you said, yes, the Rodents want to see the US Navy rust tied up to the dock.

The Americans want a strong Navy, which you can't have with fifty year-old ships, just like the Air Force can't be strong while it's still flying the B52 as a primary strategic bomber.

All Rodents gut the military.

Your Traitor King depleted the military in every way imaginable.  

Purging qualified staff officers, replacing them with fags who can't figure out which head to use.

Getting as many troops killed as possible while hobbling them with the most absurd ROE imaginable, intended to protect as many of the enemy as possible.

Running down the gear, wearing out the people, destroying unit cohesiveness with "diversity", etc.

Our military is in deep shit.

Which means we are, too.

----------


## LFD

> Does China run the damn thing?
> 
> Then it's THEIRS.    They get to pay Russia for it when we sink it, don't they?


Your claim was that it worked like a Chinese aircraft carrier.

China never made an aircraft carrier, so it works like a Russian Admiral Kuznetsov. 




> The Americans want a strong Navy, which you can't have with fifty year-old ships, just like the Air Force can't be strong while it's still flying the B52 as a primary strategic bomber.


We constantly decommision ships, but mostly because we have too many. Most ships never went obsolete, even many of the ones used in WW2. 

The smart move would be to modify and re-outfit older ships with new electronics, armor, and weapon systems. 

The idea of producing new models with minor improvements is a huge money waster. 





> Running down the gear, wearing out the people, destroying unit cohesiveness with "diversity", etc.


The gear part I agree with.

The reason newer US military technology has been falling short with other nations, is because the pentagon focuses more on wishful thinking rather than practical applications.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Hello?
> 
> Why do you believe they're all upset about the boat not meeting it's readiness date?
> 
> Your Traitor King can't use it as pro-HC propaganda if it's working like a French or Chinese built carrier.


Doowd, what does Obama have to do with the military? Obama is not military, in spite of his tittle of "Commander in Chief." He's a civilian. He did not have shit to do with this, please don't demonize the military just to screw with the POTUS.

----------


## Taxcutter

> China doesn't have an aircraft carrier. They only have a commissioned Admiral Kuznetsov made by Russia they use for training. 
> 
> That is why this new aircraft carrier is so controversial. We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, and there was a faction that was vocal against further production.
> 
> Innovation is driven by necessity. This was not.




Taxcutter says:
It's called "staying ahead of the curve."

New technology takes time to perfect.  If you wait for necessity to stare you in the face, you have already lost.

It took decades to perfect drones and they are still changing.

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-26-2016)

----------


## Northern Rivers

> Your claim was that it worked like a Chinese aircraft carrier.
> 
> China never made an aircraft carrier, so it works like a Russian Admiral Kuznetsov. 
> 
> 
> 
> We constantly decommision ships, but mostly because we have too many. Most ships never went obsolete, even many of the ones used in WW2. 
> 
> The smart move would be to modify and re-outfit older ships with new electronics, armor, and weapon systems. 
> ...


How?

----------

