The Political Party

[Fred Fartboski]

USS Visconti:

[Caulk Rocket]

---

Visconti wrote:

---

Caulk Rocket wrote:
The problem with 9/11 is that we didn't have enough aircraft carriers.

---

The problem with 9/11 was there were not any Marines in Benghazi to protect Ambassador Stevens.

When Obama heard the news Ambassador Stevens was missing he refused to send any help.

@$$wipe Obama them blamed attack on Ambassador Stevens on a youtube video no one saw.

The next day @$$wipe Obama went to La$ Vegas because he needed more money.

@$$wipe Obama cares more about campaigning than doing his job.

---

The problem with Wyn Belorusky is that he's  a fat fucking idiot.

[Tom Hicks]

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

---

savoldi wrote:

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

i suppose we will just have to make do with a military budget costing us more than that of all other nations combined.

who finds this worrisome besides scooter?

---

Note to the riightwhacks.

Nobody is going to fuck with our navy on a large scale basis. The best an enemy can do is nibble and run, and if they don't run fast enough that same navy will rain a shit torrent of metal and explosives on their heads. That same bunch won't be doing it again.

---

in addition, the military lesson learned by the falklands war was the vulnerability of large expensive surface vessals to far less costly anti-ship missiles.

a house that costs a million bucks easily burns to the ground by means of a match costing less than a penny.

a further historical trend not yet commented on is how the paradigm of past warfare between big superpowers slugging it out has mutated to one of assymetrical warfare.

---

Is this based on your expert military opinion?

Or at least please cite the contomparary surface warfare tactical document you're referencing,

BTW, there were no anti-ship missile tactics or technology employed during the Falklands war.

Thank you.

---

exocet. i accept your apology.

Falklands War
Sue 204 of Argentina's 2nd Navy Sqd used on the Atlantic Conveyor attack.
Exocet impact (source netmarine.net)

In 1982, during the Falklands War, the Exocet became noted worldwide when Argentine Navy Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard warplanes carrying the AM39 Air Launched version of Exocet caused irreparable damage and disabled the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Sheffield on 4 May 1982; and the 15,000 ton merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor was struck by two Exocet anti-ship missiles on 25 May.

[nedezero1]

On behalf of the British captain obvious. No "anti" anti ship tactics or defenses were used because there really weren't any. Today is much different and under the Aegis umbrella, the plane to even launch the missile wouldn't be a factor. Then there's the ASM defense advancements like ciws and rsm, and SLQ 32. Shit the British didn't really have.     Your apology is accepted. :-)

[Tom Hicks]

---

nedezero1 wrote:

On behalf of the British captain obvious. No "anti" anti ship tactics or defenses were used because there really weren't any. Today is much different and under the Aegis umbrella, the plane to even launch the missile wouldn't be a factor. Then there's the ASM defense advancements like ciws and rsm, and SLQ 32. Shit the British didn't really have.     Your apology is accepted. :-)

---

look it up for yourself and don't fear the facts.

just google: falklands  anti-ship missle exocet

then post what you find. this will be good.

[Tom Hicks]

don't be shy, ned.

Weapons of the Falklands War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

These are some of the key weapons of the Falklands War used by both sides.
Contents

    1 Anti-ship missiles
    2 Surface to air missiles
    3 Anti-aircraft guns
    4 Aircraft and weapons
    5 Artillery and Armour
    6 Ships
    7 Infantry weapons
        7.1 British
        7.2 Argentine
    8 References

Anti-ship missiles

The Exocet is probably the most famous weapon of the war, sinking two British ships and damaging a third. Operated by both sides the missile was used by the Argentine Navy either air launched from Dassault Super Étendard jets and from an improvised land launcher.

        See main article Exocet.

The Sea Skua was a British light anti-ship missile, fired from Lynx helicopters, its warhead is only 20 kg compared with the Exocet's 165 kg. However hits from three Sea Skua missiles badly damaged the Argentine ARA Alferez Sobral.

        See main article Sea Skua.

The AS.12 was a French built light anti-ship missile, fired from Westland Wasp helicopters. Like the Sea Skua its small 28 kg warhead meant that it could not destroy ships outright, however it could disable smaller vessels. On 25 April 1982 it contributed towards damaging and disabling the Argentine Submarine the ARA Santa Fe. A total of nine missiles were fired at the submarine trapped on the surface by anti-submarine torpedoes circling just under the hull. Of the missiles fired four hit, four missed and one failed to launch. Two of the missiles that hit the target failed to detonate on impact, instead punching a hole through the slender conning tower and exploding on the far side.

        See main article AS.12.

[larry50]

You guys aren't communicating.   I think Ned means that there was no existing technology to detect or defend against the Exocet, not that no anti-ship missiles existed. 

[nedezero1]

---

larry50 wrote:

You guys aren't communicating.   I think Ned means that there was no existing technology to detect or defend against the Exocet, not that no anti-ship missiles existed. 

---

Bingo

[Tom Hicks]

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

Is this based on your expert military opinion?

Or at least please cite the contomparary surface warfare tactical document you're referencing,

BTW, there were no anti-ship missile tactics or technology employed during the Falklands war.

Thank you.

---

how do you explain this post then?

[larry50]

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

Is this based on your expert military opinion?

Or at least please cite the contomparary surface warfare tactical document you're referencing,

BTW, there were no anti-ship missile tactics or technology employed during the Falklands war.

Thank you.

---

how do you explain this post then?

---

It's just a matter of arguably ambiguous text.   But, I read the passage as referring to defense against anti-ship missiles, not to the anti-ship missiles.

[Tom Hicks]

---

larry50 wrote:

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

Is this based on your expert military opinion?

Or at least please cite the contomparary surface warfare tactical document you're referencing,

BTW, there were no anti-ship missile tactics or technology employed during the Falklands war.

Thank you.

---

how do you explain this post then?

---

It's just a matter of arguably ambiguous text.   But, I read the passage as referring to defense against anti-ship missiles, not to the anti-ship missiles.

---

he's not ambiguous at all, just incorrect.

a weapon to be be employed against anti-ship missiles would be refered to as an anti-missile weapon.

now, let's brush aside the semantics to get to the point i was making. a carrier that costs multiple billions is vulnerable to an anti-ship missle that costs a million or so.

you do the math.

[larry50]

There is no denying that fact.

But, there are very few countries who possess missiles of the required accuracy and sophistication to bring down a fully defended carrier.  The days of Entendards flying Exocets undetected to within missile range of a US carrier are long gone. 

[Tom Hicks]

---

larry50 wrote:

There is no denying that fact.

---

you are not counting on ned "its just a sheen" zero's actual words.

[prolurkerguy]

---

larry50 wrote:

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

Is this based on your expert military opinion?

Or at least please cite the contomparary surface warfare tactical document you're referencing,

BTW, there were no anti-ship missile tactics or technology employed during the Falklands war.

Thank you.

---

how do you explain this post then?

---

It's just a matter of arguably ambiguous text.   But, I read the passage as referring to defense against anti-ship missiles, not to the anti-ship missiles.

---

Tom so rarely gets to be correct, I say we give him this one.

[larry50]

---

prolurkerguy wrote:

---

larry50 wrote:

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

Is this based on your expert military opinion?

Or at least please cite the contomparary surface warfare tactical document you're referencing,

BTW, there were no anti-ship missile tactics or technology employed during the Falklands war.

Thank you.

---

how do you explain this post then?

---

It's just a matter of arguably ambiguous text.   But, I read the passage as referring to defense against anti-ship missiles, not to the anti-ship missiles.

---

Tom so rarely gets to be correct, I say we give him this one.

---

Tom Hicks is a pretty sharp dude who I have rarely found to be off the mark.  I think it was a misunderstanding.   I am in favor of many carrier groups.  Tom appears to have an opposite viewpoint.  

[prolurkerguy]

---

larry50 wrote:

---

prolurkerguy wrote:

---

larry50 wrote:

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

Is this based on your expert military opinion?

Or at least please cite the contomparary surface warfare tactical document you're referencing,

BTW, there were no anti-ship missile tactics or technology employed during the Falklands war.

Thank you.

---

how do you explain this post then?

---

It's just a matter of arguably ambiguous text.   But, I read the passage as referring to defense against anti-ship missiles, not to the anti-ship missiles.

---

Tom so rarely gets to be correct, I say we give him this one.

---

Tom Hicks is a pretty sharp dude who I have rarely found to be off the mark. 

---

Maybe there are two of them?

[savoldi]

---

prolurkerguy wrote:

---

larry50 wrote:

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

Is this based on your expert military opinion?

Or at least please cite the contomparary surface warfare tactical document you're referencing,

BTW, there were no anti-ship missile tactics or technology employed during the Falklands war.

Thank you.

---

how do you explain this post then?

---

It's just a matter of arguably ambiguous text.   But, I read the passage as referring to defense against anti-ship missiles, not to the anti-ship missiles.

---

Tom so rarely gets to be correct, I say we give him this one.

---

He doesn't need your thumbs up. You can put it back where you usually keep it.

[Tom Hicks]

US Cole, more evidence of assymetrical warfare.

[larry50]

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

US Cole, more evidence of assymetrical warfare.

---

I think we may have learned a few lessons from the Cole incident. 

[Fred Fartboski]

---

prolurkerguy wrote:

---

 .

---

Tom so rarely gets to be correct, I say we give him this one.

---

So who's alt are you? Time to step foward and come clean.