|
Is there actually a plan to buy a 60 year old LPH and refit it for service with the Royal navy?
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Murgos posted:Is there actually a plan to buy a 60 year old LPH and refit it for service with the Royal navy? I thought the plan was to use the Prince of Wales because GB won't have enough F-35s to use both carriers in a fixed-wing role.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
What about the Mistrals? Google tells me they were sold to Egypt, who promptly sold them right back to Russia? In which case, lol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Google tells me they were sold to Egypt Saint Celestine posted:who promptly sold them right back to Russia? They're still in the Egyptian Navy and I don't believe Putin really wants them back. They were Medvedev's idea, not his. Putin finds it much better to sell Egypt the copters they need to make these ships worth the investment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Blistex posted:That's what Exocets are for. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Whats Egypt going to do with 2 mistrals? Hang out by the pier most of the time, run some exercises every so often?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Whats Egypt going to do with 2 mistrals? Hang out by the pier most of the time, run some exercises every so often? Supposedly protect the Suez Canal from terrorist groups that may hypothetically try to disrupt the only thing that still brings some money to the Egyptian state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Whats Egypt going to do with 2 mistrals? Hang out by the pier most of the time, run some exercises every so often? Have them get hit by anti-ship missiles while fooling around in the Yemen
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Whats Egypt going to do with 2 mistrals? Hang out by the pier most of the time, run some exercises every so often? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTMS_Chakri_Naruebet Something like this I'm betting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Today I learned that Thailand of all countries, has an "aircraft carrier".
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I thought the plan was to use the Prince of Wales because GB won't have enough F-35s to use both carriers in a fixed-wing role. With two carriers and neutered shipyard infrastructure there's no way they're both deployed at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Today I learned that Thailand of all countries, has an "aircraft carrier". More like floating helicopter platform.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Today I learned that Thailand of all countries, has an "aircraft carrier". In a similar way to SpaceX
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Today I learned that Thailand of all countries, has an "aircraft carrier". Brazil is claiming they're going to keep the
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Must be a lot of third tier navies getting anxious that the us navy is running its planes into the ground instead if replacing them on the reg Has the USN been selling off old Hornets to anyone? Could you even fly one off anything smaller than a Nimitz anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Speaking of the USN, they still want more Super Hornets. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-fighters-idUSKBN13T05S quote:"To decrease the strike fighter shortfall and to best prepare future air wings for likely threats we will soon divest from legacy Hornets, look to buy several squadrons worth of Super Hornets and continue with efforts to bring on the F-35 carrier variant," said the official.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I like how they're diplomatically mentioning their support for the F-35 but don't mention any intention of buying squadrons of them. But it's already operational with the Marines!!! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
There's not any doubt the Navy will buy F-35s. Nor is there any doubt that the F-35C is a better plane than the super hornet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:There's not any doubt the Navy will buy F-35s. Nor is there any doubt that the F-35C is a better plane than the super hornet. *frowns, scribbles in notebook*
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
The Shornet's handling in N-1 conditions is much better than the F-35C's, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
OfficialGBSCaliph posted:*frowns, scribbles in notebook* The bar is not high.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The Shornet's handling in N-1 conditions is much better than the F-35C's, though. Maybe the F-35 will be low-observable to bad weather or something
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Trump wants to cancel the next-gen Airforce One order. Knowing Trump, this is probably just a scam to try and get the government to pay him for using his 757.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Trump wants to cancel the next-gen Airforce One order. https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/806174665806934017/photo/1
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
A new 747-8 is ~350M, so I can see two highly customized versions costing 4B. The 170M stated is just a preliminary contract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
America is really good at aircraft carriers. Really, really good. Like I think America has constructed more aircraft carriers post WW2 than the rest of the world put together. I was thinking about this the other day, and I tried making a post for here about it, but it got eaten by me loving up. Just reading up on the eventual fates of American carriers is amusing in itself, since some of them are things like "sold to a scrapper in Texas for $1" and "turned into a artificial reef."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Trump wants to cancel the next-gen Airforce One order. Actually, it's a good sign that he doesn't have designs on being ~Trumpolini por vita~. The new AF1 isn't scheduled to become operational until 2020-2024, and there's also a rule that a president can't put in a formal order for a new presidential aircraft until his second term so it can't be viewed as a potential purchase for themselves. Trump probably figures Obama won't finalize the order to buy him a new ride (which he might only get to use during the latter half of his second term) before he leaves office out of spite (because it's what he'd do), and he knows he'll never get to fly in a new AF1, so ~gently caress it~, ain't no one after him gonna get nothin' new neither. So it's not fiscal conservatism, it's just garden-variety drama and petulance. Someone will remind him how many people Boeing employs and he'll walk it back or make a claim that a "smaller" 787 would be more prudent. There's also the potential of it being a bit of "gently caress you, Washington state, you didn't think I was cool." The big question will be if he brings back the VH-71 so he can brag to other billionaires that his helicopter costs nearly half a billion per copy. ...and it can't even do Airwolf poo poo. I also wonder if he's going to use taxpayer dollars to hangar his 757 at Andrews and use Air Force personnel to maintain and upgrade it to government/military standards. "I wanna state of the art anti-missile system put onna plane. The same one makes those cargo planes look like angels spreadin' their wings whennit goes 'whoosh.' Call Boeing and ask 'em if they can put military grade engines on it, too. Four of 'em. I know 757s only got two, but I want the only four-engined 757 inna world, and tell 'em I don't wannit to use no more gas than a two engine plane, too." BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
The $4B is also most likely a take-away bullet in an executive summary that includes all costs in the project projected out for 30 years or whatever. So, how many of the electoral college members from states casting their EC votes for Trump are required by law to do so? Like, is there enough leeway there that the EC just says, "Nah."? I ask because in the news today is a note about how at least 1 Texas EC member plans to not vote for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The $4B is also most likely a take-away bullet in an executive summary that includes all costs in the project projected out for 30 years or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:There are no laws, and that dude is the 7th faithless elector to refuse to vote for Trump. We need 30 more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
If they hang the electoral college instead of switching votes it'll just go to the House of Representatives, who would probably give it to Trump anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:There are no laws, and that dude is the 7th faithless elector to refuse to vote for Trump. (Per Wikipedia) 29 states have laws to punish faithless electors. Only Michigan and Minnesota would void the faithless votes, the rest would stand but the elector could be fined or jailed after the vote is counted if convicted. 21 states have no laws on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:(Per Wikipedia) 29 states have laws to punish faithless electors. Only Michigan and Minnesota would void the faithless votes, the rest would stand but the elector could be fined or jailed after the vote is counted if convicted. 21 states have no laws on the matter. Those laws have never been tested though, and a whole lot of people think they'd likely be found unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:06
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Those laws have never been tested though, and a whole lot of people think they'd likely be found unconstitutional. I'd say it would be nice to find out soon, but it's easy to imagine the chaos and damage to our political system if the EC did something like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Oh yeah it'd be total chaos. Tough to imagine something more damaging to the fabric of American democracy, especially given all the anti-establishment sentiment in the election cycle. On the other hand, the EC is dumb as poo poo, it'd be cool to see you guys finally get motivated enough to scrap it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Oh yeah it'd be total chaos. Tough to imagine something more damaging to the fabric of American democracy, especially given all the anti-establishment sentiment in the election cycle. All voting systems are broken, but a straight up-or-down popular vote would be vastly more broken than the EC. I mean, the EC gets flack for making certain states far more important than others and focuses campaigning in those states, but a straight popular would vote enormously exacerbate that problem because no candidate would need to give a gently caress about the vast majority of the states. The only important state to carry would be California and outside of that all they'd focus on campaigning on would be New York City, and Harris, Cook, Miami-Dade, Dallas, and Maricopa Counties. The inevitable and easily-predictable result of that is give those few urban centers everything they want, gently caress the rest of the country, and hat's gonna make the people outside of those few urban centers *really* pissed off when they find out their votes literally don't matter at all. And they, you know, grow all the food and have all the guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:41
|
|
Phanatic posted:All voting systems are broken, but a straight up-or-down popular vote would be vastly more broken than the EC. I mean, the EC gets flack for making certain states far more important than others and focuses campaigning in those states, but a straight popular would vote enormously exacerbate that problem because no candidate would need to give a gently caress about the vast majority of the states. The only important state to carry would be California and outside of that all they'd focus on campaigning on would be New York City, and Harris, Cook, Miami-Dade, Dallas, and Maricopa Counties. The inevitable and easily-predictable result of that is give those few urban centers everything they want, gently caress the rest of the country, and hat's gonna make the people outside of those few urban centers *really* pissed off when they find out their votes literally don't matter at all. And they, you know, grow all the food and have all the guns. I keep making this point again and again to my liberal friends who are all "We should just have a popular vote anyway!" comment every few days.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:All voting systems are broken, but a straight up-or-down popular vote would be vastly more broken than the EC. I mean, the EC gets flack for making certain states far more important than others and focuses campaigning in those states, but a straight popular would vote enormously exacerbate that problem because no candidate would need to give a gently caress about the vast majority of the states. The only important state to carry would be California and outside of that all they'd focus on campaigning on would be New York City, and Harris, Cook, Miami-Dade, Dallas, and Maricopa Counties. The inevitable and easily-predictable result of that is give those few urban centers everything they want, gently caress the rest of the country, and hat's gonna make the people outside of those few urban centers *really* pissed off when they find out their votes literally don't matter at all. And they, you know, grow all the food and have all the guns. That's already the case though, it's just a different subset of states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:46
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That's already the case though, it's just a different subset of states. At least its entire states and not a few dozen square miles total of the entire nation.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
So it's really a question of whose votes you'd prefer to waste, then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:51
|
|
