What you can learn about America on the deck of the USS 'Theodore Roosevelt.'

[daytrader]

   24 Hours on the 'Big Stick'
by P.J. O'Rourke
Probably the best column written by P.J. in about ten years; and he's one of the finest columnists alive. 

If you have never landed on an aircraft carrier, this is MUST reading.  That means I read it...I had a post college roommate that served on the Forrestal - he put the bombs and missiles on the dang planes...he had nerves of steel...he saw at least one incident where  pilot/bombardier went over the side. He's one guy I really respected.  The whole article builds up to the last paragraph.  Whatever decision you make (or NONE OF THE ABOVE) kindly consider what is written in this column, your well-being may depend on it.

Happy Weekend!

DayTrader

source:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/006dgrlw.asp?pg=2

Landing on an aircraft carrier is...To begin with, you travel out to the carrier on a powerful, compact, and chunky aircraft--a weight-lifter version of a regional airline turboprop. This is a C-2 Greyhound, named after the wrong dog. C-2 Flying Pit Bull is more like it. In fact what everyone calls the C-2 is the "COD." This is an acronym for "Curling the hair Of Dumb reporters," although they tell you it stands for "Carrier Onboard Delivery."

There is only one window in the freight/passenger compartment, and you're nowhere near it. Your seat faces aft. Cabin lighting and noise insulation are absent. The heater is from the parts bin at the Plymouth factory in 1950. You sit reversed in cold, dark cacophony while the airplane maneuvers for what euphemistically is called a "landing." The nearest land is 150 miles away. And the plane doesn't land; its tailhook snags a cable on the carrier deck. The effect is of being strapped to an armchair and dropped backwards off a balcony onto a patio. There is a fleeting moment of unconsciousness. This is a good thing, as is being far from the window, because what happens next is that the COD reels the hooked cable out the entire length of the carrier deck until a big, fat nothing is between you and a plunge in the ocean, should the hook, cable, or pilot's judgment snap. Then, miraculously, you're still alive.

Landing on an aircraft carrier was the most fun I'd ever had with my trousers on. And the 24 hours that I spent aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt--the "Big Stick"--were an equally unalloyed pleasure. I love big, moving machinery. And machinery doesn't get any bigger, or more moving, than a U.S.-flagged nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that's longer than the Empire State Building is tall and possesses four acres of flight deck. This four acres, if it were a nation, would have the fifth or sixth largest airforce in the world--86 fixed wing aircraft plus helicopters.

The Theodore Roosevelt and its accompanying cruisers, destroyers, and submarines can blow up most of the military of most of the countries on earth. God has given America a special mission. Russia can barely blow up Chechnya. China can blow up Tibet, maybe, and possibly Taiwan. And the EU can't blow up Liechtenstein. But the USA can blow up .  .  . gosh, where to start?

But I didn't visit the Theodore Roosevelt just to gush patriotically--although some patriotic gushing is called for in America at the moment. And while I'm at it let me heap praise upon the people who arranged and guided my Big Stick tour. I was invited on the "embark" thanks to the kindness of the Honorable William J. (Jim) Haynes II, former Department of Defense general counsel. The trip was arranged by Colonel Kelly Wheaton, senior military assistant to acting Department of Defense general counsel Daniel Dell'Orto, and by Lt. Commander Philip Rosi, public affairs officer of the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group.

I traveled with the Honorable Mr. Dell'Orto and a group of ten Distinguished Visitors (minus me). Onboard we met people more distinguished yet, including Captain C.L. Wheeler, commanding officer of the Theodore Roosevelt, Rear Admiral Frank C. Pandolfe, commander of the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, and Command Master Chief Petty Officer Chris Engles, who--as anyone with experience in or of the Navy knows (my dad was a chief petty officer)--actually runs everything.

I could go on about the TR and its crew at epic length. And one day, if they'll invite me back, I'll do so. But, being a reporter, I wasn't there to report on things. I was there to get a journalistic hook--a tailhook, as it were--for a preconceived idea. I wanted to say something about Senator John McCain. And as soon as our distinguished visitor group donned "float coats" and ear protection and went to the flight deck and saw F-18s take off and land, I had something to say.

Carrier launches are astonishing events. The plane is moved to within what seems like a bowling alley's length of the bow. A blast shield larger than any government building driveway Khomeini-flipper rises behind the fighter jet, and the jet's twin engines are cranked to maximum thrust. A slot-car slot runs down the middle of the bowling alley. The powered-up jet is held at the end of its slot by a steel shear pin smaller than a V-8 can. When the shear pin shears the jet is unleashed and so is a steam catapult that hurls the plane down the slot, from 0 to 130 miles per hour in two seconds. And--if all goes well--the airplane is airborne. This is not a pilot taking off. This is a pilot as cat's eye marble pinched between boundless thumb and infinite forefinger of Heaven's own Wham-O slingshot.

Carrier landings are more astonishing. We were in heavy seas. Spray was coming over the bow onto the flight deck, 60 feet above the waterline. As the ship was pitching, 18 tons of F-18 with a wingspan of 40-odd feet approached at the speed of celebrity sex rumor. Four acres of flight deck has never looked so small. Had it been lawn you'd swear you could do it in 15 minutes with a push mower.

Four arresting cables are stretched across the stern, each thick as a pepperoni. The cables are held slightly above the runway by metal hoops. The pilot can't really see these cables and isn't really looking at that runway, which is rising at him like a slap in the face or falling away like the slope of a playground slide when you're four. The pilot has his eye on the "meatball," a device, portside midship, with a glowing dot that does--or doesn't--line up between two lighted dashes. This indicates that the pilot is . . . no, isn't . . . yes, is . . . isn't . . . is . . . on course to land. Meanwhile there are sailors in charge of the landing hunched at a control panel portside aft. They are on the radio telling the pilot what he's doing or better had do or hadn't better. They are also waving colored paddles at him meaning this or that. (I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about here.) Plus there are other pilots on the radio along with an officer in the control tower. The pilot is very well trained because at this point his head doesn't explode.

The pilot drops his tailhook. This is not an impressive-looking piece of equipment--no smirks about the 1991 Tailhook Association brouhaha, please. The hook doesn't appear sturdy enough to yank Al Franken offstage when Al is smirking about the presidential candidate who belonged to the Tailhook Association. The hook is supposed to--and somehow usually does--strike the deck between the second and third arresting cables. The cable then does not jerk the F-18 back to the stern the way it would in a cartoon. Although watching these events is so unreal that you expect cartoon logic to apply.

Now imagine all concerned doing all of the above with their eyes closed. That is a night operation. We went back on deck to see--wrong verb--to feel and hear the night flights. The only things we could see were the flaming twin suns of the F-18 afterburners at the end of the catapult slot.

Some say John McCain's character was formed in a North Vietnamese prison. I say those people should take a gander at what John chose to do--voluntarily. Being a carrier pilot requires aptitude, intelligence, skill, knowledge, discernment, and courage of a kind rarely found anywhere but in a poem of Homer's or a half gallon of Dewar's. I look from John McCain to what the opposition has to offer. There's Ms. Smarty-Pantsuit, the Bosnia-Under-Sniper-Fire poster gal, former prominent Washington hostess, and now the JV senator from the state that brought you Eliot Spitzer and Bear Stearns. And there's the happy-talk boy wonder, the plaster Balthazar in the Cook County political crèche, whose policy pronouncements sound like a walk through Greenwich Village in 1968: "Change, man? Got any spare change? Change?"

Some people say John McCain isn't conservative enough. But there's more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo. Conservatism is also a matter of honor, duty, valor, patriotism, self-discipline, responsibility, good order, respect for our national institutions, reverence for the traditions of civilization, and adherence to the political honesty upon which all principles of democracy are based. Given what screw-ups we humans are in these respects, conservatism is also a matter of sense of humor. Heard any good quips lately from Hillary or Barack?

A one-day visit to an aircraft carrier is a lifelong lesson in conservatism. The ship is immense, going seven decks down from the flight deck and ten levels up in the tower. But it's full, with some 5,500 people aboard. Living space is as cramped as steerage on the way to Ellis Island. Even the pilots live in three-bunk cabins as small and windowless as hall closets. A warship is a sort of giant Sherman tank upon the water. Once below deck you're sealed inside. There are no cheery portholes to wave from.

McCain could hardly escape understanding the limits of something huge but hermetic, like a government is, and packed with a madding crowd. It requires organization, needs hierarchies, demands meritocracy, insists upon delegation of authority. An intricate, time-tested system replete with checks and balances is not a plaything to be moved around in a doll house of ideology. It is not a toy bunny serving imaginary sweets at a make-believe political tea party. The captain commands, but his whims do not. He answers to the nation.

And yet an aircraft carrier is more an example of what people can do than what government can't. Scores of people are all over the flight deck during takeoffs and landings. They wear color-coded T-shirts--yellow for flight-directing, purple for fueling, blue for chocking and tying-down, red for weapon-loading, brown for I-know-not-what, and so on. These people can't hear each other. They use hand signals. And, come night ops, they can't do that. Really, they communicate by "training telepathy." They have absorbed their responsibilities to the point that each knows exactly where to be and when and doing what.

These are supremely dangerous jobs. And most of the flight deck crew members are only 19 or 20. Indeed the whole ship is run by youngsters. The average age, officers and all, is about 24. "These are the same kids," a chief petty officer said, "who, back on land, have their hats bumped to one side and their pants around their knees, hanging out on corners. And here they're in charge of $35 million airplanes."

The crew is in more danger than the pilots. If an arresting cable breaks--and they do--half a dozen young men and women could be sliced in half. When a plane crashes, a weapon malfunctions, or a fire breaks out, there's no ejection seat for the flight deck crew. While we were on the Theodore Roosevelt a memorial service was held for a crew member who had been swept overboard. Would there have been an admiral and a captain of an aircraft carrier and hundreds of the bravest Americans at a memorial service for you when you were 20?

Supposedly the "youth vote" is all for Obama. But it's John McCain who actually has put his life in the hands of adolescents on a carrier deck. Supposedly the "women's vote" is . . . well, let's not go too far with this. I can speak to John's honor, duty, valor, patriotism, etc., but I'm not sure how well his self-discipline would have fared if he'd been on an aircraft carrier with more than 500 beautiful women sailors the way I was. At least John likes women, which is more than we can say about Hillary's attitude toward, for instance, the women in Bill's life, who at this point may constitute nearly the majority of the "women's vote."

These would have been interesting subjects to discuss with the Theodore Roosevelt shipmates, but time was up.

Back on the COD you're buckled in and told to brace as if for a crash. Whereupon there is a crash. The catapult sends you squashed against your flight harness. And just when you think that everything inside your body is going to blow out your nose and navel, it's over. You're in steady, level flight.

A strange flight it is--from the hard and fast reality of a floating island to the fantasy world of American solid ground. In this never-never land a couple of tinhorn Second City shysters--who, put together, don't have the life experience of the lowest ranking gob-with-a-swab cleaning a head on the Big Stick--presume to run for president of the United States. They're not just running against the hero John McCain, they're running against heroism itself and against almost everything about America that ought to be conserved.

[Ray]

Good article, and pretty accurate too.

Navy and Marine Corps carrier fighter pilots are a rare breed and definitely deserve our respect and admiration. IMHO, Hillary and Barak aren't worthy to lick John McCain's boots... 

And for any of you employers out there, if you ever have the opportunity to hire a former Navy aviation flight deck crewman, grab him quickly. Those guys are among the most responsible and reliable folks you will ever meet.

Ray

[Dave H]

Navy and Marine Corps carrier fighter pilots are a rare breed and definitely deserve our respect and admiration. IMHO, Hillary and Barak aren't worthy to lick John McCain's boots... 

And for any of you employers out there, if you ever have the opportunity to hire a former Navy aviation flight deck crewman, grab him quickly. Those guys are among the most responsible and reliable folks you will ever meet.

Ray

Hey Ray,

Here here!!! You are right those two are not worthy to be McCain's bootlickers after he visited GWB's ranch and stepped in cowpies!

Being a paramilitary organization, fire departments preferred to hire veterans...IN THE PAST!  I worked with several former Navy aviation flight deck crewman. They were very, professional, responsible, reliable, knowledgable, hardworking, and humble guys! I found out through another guy that my good friend and coworker John, had jumped off the deck of an aircraft  carrier into the South China Sea and rescued a pilot that went off the deck while landing.

Dave

[catz]

There's a show starting on PBS Sunday evening (here in the Mid-West) called Carrier. Check your local station if interested. Here's the web site: www.pbs.org/weta/carrier

[daytrader]

c-o-o-e-L.....I will be sure to watch it and burn it to watch on HiDef in the future...I guess PBS tried to do the series on the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, but it was too busy!  NOT! PBS executives (all flaming anti-war liberals) would be jumping out windows if they filmed anything but a anti-war hit piece on the RAYGUN!  LOL


DayTrader

[Ray]

They've also been running a real good series on the History Channel, Battle 360, about the exploits of the carrier USS Enterprise in WWII.

It's on tonight...

[Dave H]

        

[daytrader]

Generals and Admirals continually fight the last war....

I've been thinking similar thoughts since a WWI-era mine damaged a quarter billion dollar destroyer in the Persian Gulf...

What's funny is, if a modern day P-47 or P-51 was built, it would be far more effective in many of the regional conflicts the U.S. has had to project power to. 

Grenada
Panama
Afghanistan
Vietnam  (loitering near the borders of Laos & Cambodia and the Mekong Delta waiting to knock the stuffing out of a future ambush or supply convoy)
Iraq (Predators do the job now)
not - Lybia (we lost a state of the art low-level F-111 instead of using high altitude fighter/bomber)
British - Falklands Theatre

cheap fossil burning Cruiser-class flattops could launch these part time flotillas when we need to beat up some 3rd rate group of thugs. 

Yes, our 'Big Stick' is necessary in the Indian Ocean, Taiwan Strait, but the Chicoms would quickly vanquish our assets in the area, likely within minutes with a overwhelming missile attack. We would respond with tactical nuclear...so our beloved fleet is merely "bait", just like Pearl Harbor was "bait" for the Japanese.  Have we learned nothing?

Wouldn't heat seeking missiles be unable to find their target, since there is no red-hot jet exhaust?  Training, equipment, delivery would be a fraction of the cost.  The Air Force has continually tried to kill the A-10, yet the pilots resisted, now they are being updated to fly another 2 decades.  The A-10 is a glorified P-47 (the P-47 was heavily armored in it's day and the primary ground attack plane in the European theatre after D-Day against the greatest anti-aircraft technology of the War). 

Close support would be avoided and "stand off" fire power mounted on these piston engine platforms when a fierce anti-aircraft threat is detected; otherwise a close-in attack would be allowed.  If the piston engine platform is out-classed, then send in the jets. 

Future high tech wars will use a future generation drone (in the hundreds or thousands) to take out air defenses, radars, then the manned or expensive cruise missiles for the high value targets.  Cheap platforms could be built into cheap diesel submarines that would surface to launch hundreds of drones and cruise missiles. 

DayTrader

"Prescription for Irrelevance"

by Lt. Col. David Evans, USMC (Ret.)

Lessons Not Learned: The U.S. Navy's Status Quo Culture, by Roger Thompson, Naval Institute Press, 2007, 253 pages.

Later this month the Public Broadcasting System will air a series of television documentaries of life aboard the new supercarrier USS Nimitz. The promotional videos show the usual choreography involved in launching the aircraft and impressive bow shots of the massive nuclear-powered ship plowing through the water. There's one perspective the viewers will not see: the carrier framed dead center in the crosshairs of a submarine's periscope, the captain ready to launch torpedoes or underwater-launched missiles to cripple or sink the behemoth, taking beneath the waves thousands of her crew and wiping out a whole air wing of 70-plus tactical jets.

Yet this periscope view of the carrier as target is what appears on the dust jacket of Roger Thompson's book. Thompson is a fellow of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, among other academic credentials, and he has documented a decades-long history where allied diesel submarines have triumphed in exercises. They have gotten within range to launch their deadly weapons at carriers whose crews were frequently unaware of the impending threat.

Potential enemy submarines have emulated this embarrassing legacy. From a New York Times account of Feb. 25, 2008, we learn:

"In late 2006, one of China's new Song-class conventional submarines remained undetected as it shadowed the American aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk off the coast of Okinawa, Japan, although the exact details of the encounter remain the subject of continuing debate. It then surfaced well within torpedo range."

This scenario has played out in various fleet exercises since the 1950s, according to Thompson, whose book amasses a detailed history of the carrier's vulnerability to the wily skipper of an ultra-quiet diesel submarine.

Thompson also asks another question rarely posed: How proficient are the pilots and how relevant are the aircraft of a carrier's embarked air wing? The pilots train endlessly in the art of launching and recovering their aircraft, but to what purpose are they airborne in the first place? If it is to defend the ships of a carrier battle group, then what is the threat? There are no enemy carrier task forces. If shore-launched anti-ship missiles constitute the danger, the carrier air wing is ill-disposed to intercept them because it lacks the kind of surveillance needed to intercept and effective missiles to reliably kill.

If the purpose of the carrier air wing is offensive, two questions pertain. If the offensive mission is to fly "downtown" and destroy an adversary's civil and military infrastructure, this task might better be accomplished with unmanned cruise missiles - assuming that the deep strike mission itself is worth doing (a debatable proposition). If the job of naval aviation is to support a Marine landing, sleek high-speed jets are ill-suited to the role of "mudfighter," locating and destroying enemy targets on a fluid, swirling battlefield. It should be noted that during the 1990 Gulf War, the one unqualified success was the Air Force A-10. This close-support aircraft proved superlative in a variety of roles: Scud hunting, tank plinking, reconnaissance, and so forth. A Marine Corps after-action report grudgingly concluded that one A-10 was worth about ten of the Corps vaunted AV-8B jump jets, which can take off and land from a dime-size pad, if necessary, but which have limited payload and enormous vulnerability.

Unlike the A-10, which was designed to take hits from enemy ground fire, the AV-8B is a design described by one wag as "a hot gas turbine carefully wrapped in non-self sealing fuel tanks." It is not an overstatement to say that labeling the AV-8B a close support aircraft is an obscenity.

Thompson elucidates the weaknesses of Naval Aviation from the perspective of training and armament. He could have taken the next step: to indicate the real competition to manned naval aircraft - the cruise missile. The Navy has been badly hurt by these missiles in the past - witness the 1987 strike on the frigate USS Stark in the Persian Gulf by a French-built Exocet missile launched by an Iraqi jet. The Stark's meager defenses never got a shot off, and the Exocet punched into the ship, presenting news pictures the morning after of the frigate listing and smoking as damage control crews worked feverishly to save her.

One is reminded of the British Royal Navy losses to Exocets in the 1982 Falklands War. The missiles were launched from Super Etendard jets flying from bases on the Argentine mainland. The Argentines only had some 30 missiles and they came close to unhinging the British effort to retake the islands.

Ship-killing missiles, launched from enemy aircraft, from the beach, or from vessels, constitute a major threat, and carriers are a big target. The missiles are radar-guided, and it is difficult to reduce the intensity of the radar's reflections from a 90,000-ton carrier.

It would be well to remember the great effectiveness of the Kamikaze suicide planes of World War II: they damaged and sank dozens of U.S. ships in the 1945 campaign to seize Okinawa. Imagine if Kamikazes had been employed from about 1942 onwards. The Japanese might not have prevailed in the Pacific war, but they would have inflicted grievous losses on the U.S. Navy, according to a retired admiral who was a young flyer during the Pacific War.

Less appreciated, beyond fanaticism, is why the Japanese opted for Kamikazes. They attempted to design effective guidance systems for unmanned anti-ship weapons, but were unsuccessful. Simple and stark expediency drove them to terminal guidance with a human pilot.

Technology has now advanced to the point where a pilot is not essential to guide a weapon into the hull of a ship.

And if the Navy is focused on prominent fixed targets for aerial bombardment, manned aircraft - the carrier's reason for being - are an expensive luxury. The task of destroying such targets can be accomplished by missiles. Even if the missiles cost a million dollars apiece, they are an order of magnitude less than multimillion dollar carrier airplanes flown by pilots whose training and proficiency costs additional millions, operated off carriers costing in the billions of dollars.

The carrier Navy, it would seem, fails the test of costs versus benefits. Yet the carrier remains the centerpiece of the Navy.

Thompson rightly focuses on another vulnerability of the U.S. Navy, the underwater mine. I was in the Persian Gulf in 1990 as a reporter with the amphibious ready group aboard the USS Gunston Hall, and the World War I-era mines floated by the Iraqis and caused the mighty U.S. Navy to lose command of the sea. The amphibious vessels were confined to a sanitized "box" in the Persian Gulf, and one mine came within a scant four feet of crippling a carrier venturing elsewhere.

Thompson shows that the Navy's own countermine efforts are pallid; under the heading of "out of sight, out of mind" the minesweepers are generally consigned to the reserve forces. One would think the Navy would be earnestly serious about countermine capability, given the hugely successful legacy of the U.S. mining of Japan's inland sea in World War II. This campaign is apt because the Navy's primary task at the moment is operating in confined areas like the Persian Gulf, the Middle Eastern version of the waters between Japan's home islands.

Thompson has relatively little to say about the Navy's amphibious forces, about which I can speak with some experience. The Navy has opted for an "over the horizon" concept, in which troops and equipment would debark from the mother ships far out at sea and be transported to land aboard MV-22 tilt rotors, helicopters and air cushioned landing craft (LCACs). The LCAC, launched from the well deck of an amphibious ship, has been snidely described as a "helicopter with the roof off," due to the landing craft's helicopter-like delicacy and mechanical unreliability, and because equipment needed by the Marines must be positioned on its deck with the care of placing and locking in place vehicles in a conventional air transport for weight and balance considerations.

This essay is not the place to cover the many glaring shortcomings in the Navy/Marine Corps doctrine for amphibious operations. I will note, however, the ferocious effort to develop the next-generation amphibious tractor, basically a floating armored personnel carrier to deliver troops from ship to shore. The intent is to develop a vehicle that won't just plow through the water at 5 knots or so, but will plane over the water at much greater speed. Why such a vehicle is needed when there are no coral reefs to surmount (which is why the original tractor was built) remains the unanswered query.

All of which is by way of saying that if programs are to be reoriented to the Navy's real needs, there must be a dramatic shift to frank and unfettered ways of thinking. As Thompson points out, "If the U.S. Navy were a boxer, one might say his dominance is due mostly to his sheer size, because he punches well below his massive weight."

Instead of a reorientation of programs (e.g., fewer carriers, more missiles), Thompson properly emphasizes that the problem of naval reform is ultimately one of having the right people and encouraging their creativity. He offers what he calls a "simple twelve-step program" to produce a more vital and less parochial naval leadership (for example, "Discontinue the 'up or out' promotion system and use the systems used by all other English-speaking countries").

His program of reform is about a page in length, tucked all the way into page 179, but it should be a poster emblazoned on every office in the Department of the Navy. The 12-step program represents a choice: either a Navy like the present, succumbing to inexorable budget pressure and strategic irrelevancy, or a Navy that is creative in recognizing that size matters less than effectiveness.

 # # #

 Evans completed a 20-year career in the Marine Corps, spanning combat in Vietnam to the budget wars in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. After the Marines, he served as military affairs correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, during which he spent five months in Saudi Arabia covering the Gulf War (Desert Shield/Desert Storm). For the past 10 years, he has covered the airline industry for various publications and he has received numerous journalism awards for his writing on aircraft wiring, runway safety, avionics and maintenance.
 

[daytrader]

Three months after the ship returned from a deployment to the Horn of Africa, inspectors found inoperable missile and close-in weapon systems, an unsafe flight deck and widespread corrosion.


Hey, we're going into drydock in a few months, just let it go, the taxpayers can pay the overhaul crew to fix stuff that we're paid to maintain...."not my job!"  Notice the whitewash about command in control, don't rock the boat!  Can't be the commander's fault!  The dang ship can't even get up to full speed, how can that NOT be the fault of the officers? 

DayTrader


read the disturbing report, originally reported in Navy Times:
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/04/norfolkbased-destroyer-stout-deemed-unfit-triggering-fleet-review

[Ray]

What's funny is, if a modern day P-47 or P-51 was built, it would be far more effective in many of the regional conflicts the U.S. has had to project power to.

Vietnam (loitering near the borders of Laos & Cambodia and the Mekong Delta waiting to knock the stuffing out of a future ambush or supply convoy)

Haven’t you heard of the AC-47 gunship (“Puff the Magic Dragon”). Also see AC-130 Spectre gunship.

…so our beloved fleet is merely "bait", just like Pearl Harbor was "bait" for the Japanese. Have we learned nothing?

No, our fleet isn’t merely “bait” and it wasn’t “bait” at Pearl Harbor. Didn’t you know that was a sneak attack by a country we weren’t at war with? To answer your question, yes, we learned much from Pearl Harbor.

Yes, an aircraft carrier makes a large target, but it has many layers of defense, some of which are not visible to you. In a modern nuclear war between the superpowers, once the carrier launches it’s planes, it’s considered expendable.

cheap fossil burning Cruiser-class flattops could launch these part time flotillas when we need to beat up some 3rd rate group of thugs.

We’ve had those small conventional-powered carriers for some time. See LPH and LHA. They carry mainly helos but also Harrier Jump Jets. The new F-35B will also be able to operate from these smaller carriers.


Newer diesel-electric submarines are quiet but they can be located by means other than sound emissions. Diesel subs have one big disadvantage…they have to come up for air to recharge their batteries, making them vulnerable.

[daytrader]

Haven’t you heard of the AC-47 gunship (“Puff the Magic Dragon”). Also see AC-130 Spectre gunship.

No, our fleet isn’t merely “bait” and it wasn’t “bait” at Pearl Harbor. Didn’t you know that was a sneak attack by a country we weren’t at war with? To answer your question, yes, we learned much from Pearl Harbor.

Yes, an aircraft carrier makes a large target, but it has many layers of defense, some of which are not visible to you. In a modern nuclear war between the superpowers, once the carrier launches it’s planes, it’s considered expendable.

We’ve had those small conventional-powered carriers for some time. See LPH and LHA. They carry mainly helos but also Harrier Jump Jets. The new F-35B will also be able to operate from these smaller carriers.


Newer diesel-electric submarines are quiet but they can be located by means other than sound emissions. Diesel subs have one big disadvantage…they have to come up for air to recharge their batteries, making them vulnerable.

Ah, come on Ray, you can do BETTER than that! 

The AC 130 is a modified cargo plane...can be shot down very easily when seen so it is only used at night.  Yes, it is a awesome ground attack night fighter.  Any sophisticated land force would knock it out of the sky, however.  So air superiority would have to be established before the AC 130 would be deployed. 

The U.S.S. Kitty Hawk had a Chicom diesel submarine surface within striking range recently.  The U.S. Navy is unable to detect Chicom diesel submarines.  No one on our side knew it was ever there.  Ergo, the aircraft carrier, as a battle group is very vulnerable to upraded WWII technology.

Most military tacticians know that the main reason we maintain these battle groups is to protect Israel/Saudi Arabia and Taiwan/Japan (yes, I know we need to project power everywhere, but the main point is to protect these two areas).  The Battle groups are vulnerable in "close-in" areas like the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, etc.  A relatively cheap surface to surface missile launched by the Iran or the Chicoms (they can launch hundreds within minutes) can take out our beloved, expensive battle group before they can ever launch a 1st Strike (which we won't do against the Chicoms) or a retaliatory strike (against either). 

Iran has now figured out how to attack our frigates in the Strait of Hormuz..blow themselves up at about 100 yards -- because they now know our rules of engagement are to shoot them at 100 yards.  So, get a bomb (tactical nuclear) and our close-in fleet is rendered useless.  Once Iran gets the nuclear bomb, our fleet is defenseless to these tactics.  They will be free to attack tankers with impunity because we will not risk a quarter billion dollar frigate or destroyer to get blown up by a $30,000 speedboat. Tactics change, the U.S. Navy is still fighting like it was WWI. (again, frigates cruising the Strait of Hormuz are "bait").   

Staying on the cost-benefit analysis...the Harrier is not effective. Period.  How many great pilots have been killed trying to master this contraption?  Lots more than necessary if the Marines used a state of the art piston engine platform after the USAF or carrier planes gives them air superiority.   The F-35 is too expensive.  We are battling hundreds and thousands of missiles from the Chicoms and tactical nuclear or kamikazi bomb missions from the Arabs/Persians.  Waste of money.  Our future enemy will have hundreds and thousands of drones launched for our pilots to go chase instead of fighting the real enemy.  The USAF is stuck fighting the cold war again.

Regarding Pearl.  FDR (Democrat) moved most of the Atlantic fleet to Pearl in a incompetent show of force, a la Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) - Notice Teddy didn't lose any ships, but the Democrat lost a whole fleet.  Teddy would have used the fleet as a hammer.  FDR used the fleet as "bait" to draw the Japs to attack or force an incident.  Facts (and FDR's incompetence) turned this show of force into waving "bait" in front of the Japanese.  (The only reason we built aircraft carriers was because JAPAN was building them!)  FDR allowed exports to Japan of scrap metal to build the Jap  navy and bombs.  Only at the last minute did Congress intervene and stop this nonsense.  FDR needed Pearl to be attacked to get us into the war (the first Gulf of Tonkin...notice all these clowns are democrat!).  No one has been able to explain why someone called the Honolulu hospital (a day before December 7th) and asked how many empty beds they had! 

The intentions may have been noble (by incompetent politicians), but the Pacific fleet was bait.  That's how it turned out, anyhow. 

DayTrader

[Ray]

Well, DT, I guess I was foolish to think that you might actually want to learn something. But since you think you know it all, I'll let you continue making silly, uninformed statements about our military/Navy capabilities all by yourself.

One question: If you really think our Navy is so incompetent and ill-prepared, which existing Navy on this planet would you trade it for?

Bye... 

[daytrader]

Well, DT, I guess I was foolish to think that you might actually want to learn something. But since you think you know it all, I'll let you continue making silly, uninformed statements about our military/Navy capabilities all by yourself.

One question: If you really think our Navy is so incompetent and ill-prepared, which existing Navy on this planet would you trade it for?

Bye... 

Hey Ray, I assume you are a veteran, I appreciate your service and sacrifice.  Just like Billy Mitchell, Americans (and retired officers) have the right to criticize our military's tactics and planning.  Humvees using WWII technology for instance (little armour, exposed gunners), upgraded WWII diesel subs sneaking up on battle groups,  we can't win a guerilla war in Afghanistan (Japs used suicide tactics in WWII, Americans used hit and run tactics in Revolutionary war).  We don't even seal the borders of Syria and Iran...THAT'S WHERE THE BAD GUYS COME FROM!  It takes no military genius to figure that out!

We need boots in on the dang ground, not expensive military systems that need tons of support and appropriations.  We refuse to use a 90 degree angle rifle, yet the Israeli's have one; guys have to stick their head over a wall or around a corner (and get shot)  - more WWI and WWII tactics that the military REFUSES to leave behind.  We didn't even blow up munitions that were captured during the initial Iraq invasion, and those same munitions killed Iraqi's and Americans.  Our military has many STUPID IDIOTS running things, the smart people are outnumbered or out-ranked (until recently).  Results speak for themselves. 


DayTrader

below sources from Wiki:

Saying a P-47 = a AC-130, no way Ray! 

AC-130 gunship
    *  13
          o Officers: 5 (pilot, copilot, navigator, fire control officer, electronic warfare officer)
          o Enlisted: 8 (flight engineer, TV operator, infrared detection set operator, loadmaster, four aerial gunners)
    * Length: 97 ft 9 in (29.8 m)
    * Wingspan: 132 ft 7 in (40.4 m)
    * Height: 38 ft 6 in (11.7 m)
    * Wing area: 1745.5 ft² (162.2 m²)
    * Max takeoff weight: 155,000 lb (69,750 kg)
    * Powerplant: 4× Allison T56-A-15 turboprops, 4,910 shp (3,700 kW) each

Performance

    * Maximum speed: 260 knots (300 mph, 480 km/h)
    * Range: 2,200 nm (2,530 mi, 4,070 km)
    * Service ceiling 30,000 ft (9,100 m)


P-47
    * Crew: One
    * Length: 36 ft 1 in (11.00 m)
    * Wingspan: 40 ft 9 in (12.42 m)
    * Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
    * Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
    * Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,536 kg)
    * Loaded weight: 17,500 lb (7,938 kg)
    * Max takeoff weight: 17,500 lb (7,938 kg)
    * Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59 twin-row radial engine, 2,535 hp (1,890 kW)

Performance

    * Maximum speed: 433 mph at 30,000 ft (697 km/h at 9,145 m)
    * Range: 800 miles combat, 1,800 mi ferry (1,290 km / 2,900 km)
    * Service ceiling 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
    * Rate of climb: 3,120 ft/min (15.9 m/s)


Conclusion:  A P-47 could shoot down any AC-130 anytime, any day.

Regarding our Navy surface tactics....

In the month of October 2006 the Kitty Hawk and her escort warships were undergoing exercises near Okinawa, and a Chinese Song class submarine shadowed the group then surfaced within five miles of the group on October 26, 2006.[5] It was considered to be quite rare for Chinese subs to operate that far from their homeports on the mainland, though with this incident that may be changing. Reports claim that the submarine had been undetected until it surfaced.  U.S. caught asleep cuz they didn't think a Chicom sub could be that far from home port!


The Type 039 submarine (NATO code name Song class) is a class of diesel-electric submarines of the People's Liberation Army Navy.

Primary weapon for the Type 039 is the 533 mm Yu-4 torpedo, a locally produced passive homing 40-knot (74 km/h) torpedo based on the SAET-50 and roughly comparable to the SAET-60. Surface targets may be attacked at up to 15 km. Yu-6 wire-guided torpedoes may also be used for targeting submarines. It is also likely that the Type 039 is capable of carrying the YJ-8 anti-ship missile, a cruise missile which can be launched from the same tube as the boat's torpedoes, and can target surface vessels at up to 80 km. The missile is subsonic and carries a 165 kg warhead. For mining operations, in place of torpedoes, the submarine can carry 24 to 36 naval mines, deliverable through the torpedo tubes.

A 'Wolf Pack" of Chicom subs could wreck havoc on our surface Navy...this proves it, using upgraded WWII engine technology!

Conclusion: Exocet-type missiles, surface to surface missiles, cruise missiles, mines and diesel submarines can cripple our Navy when the enemy sets the time and place of an engagement.  The enemy has the advantage when our battle group is "close-in" to hostile land areas (Perisian Gulf, Red Sea, Strait of Taiwan, etc).   

If we set the time and place of an engagement, we will undoubtly win with few, if any casualties.

[catz]

We need boots in the dang ground

I sure hope that was a typo DT. We've had more than enough boots "in" the ground already.

[daytrader]

I sure hope that was a typo DT. We've had more than enough boots "in" the ground already.

yessss..it is a typo...thx for proof-reading ! 

[jm21-2]

Humvees using WWII technology for instance (little armour, exposed gunners),

I had no idea they had humvees in WWII. Learn something new everyday. The up-armored humvees aren't bad. You can only put so much armor on them before you  start running into weight problems though. They aren't supposed to be tanks.

we can't win a guerilla war in Afghanistan

Join the club.

We don't even seal the borders of Syria and Iran...THAT'S WHERE THE BAD GUYS COME FROM!  It takes no military genius to figure that out!

So...maybe we should make a 20 foot high wall around Iraq, with turrets, manned 24/7? While policing the country as well?

We need boots in the dang ground, not expensive military systems that need tons of support and appropriations. 

They're activating Navy reservists, giving them combat training, and putting them in ground combat groups. We're running out of boots.

We refuse to use a 90 degree angle rifle, yet the Israeli's have one; guys have to stick their head over a wall or around a corner (and get shot)  - more WWI and WWII tactics that the military REFUSES to leave behind. 

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you talking about CornerShot? That's only used in special anti-terrorist operations. It's essentially a pistol mounted on the front of a rifle that can rotate. It's not used by the Israeli regular army.

Our military has many STUPID IDIOTS running things, the smart people are outnumbered or out-ranked (until recently).  Results speak for themselves. 

Is it the Army's fault when politicians get DoD contracts for their buddies?

The Type 039 submarine (NATO code name Song class) is a class of diesel-electric submarines of the People's Liberation Army Navy.

You do know that good diesel-electric engines have only come around fairly recently, right?

A 'Wolf Pack" of Chicom subs could wreck havoc on your surface Navy...this proves it, using upgraded WWII engine technology!

Which is why we have bad-ass nuclear subs...and it's not like we can run around deploying depth charges and other anti-sub measures during peacetime.

Conclusion: Exocet-type missiles, mines and diesel submarines can cripple our Navy when the enemy sets the time and place of an engagement. 

If we set the time and place of an engagement, we will undoubtly win with few, if any casualties.

Are you advocating making an unprovoked, preemptive strike on China?

[daytrader]

yo, JM21-2 -- you're studying to be a lawyer, right?  haha...now I know you're qualified to be a lawyer, you can't even read a sentence in order  (Day One in Iraq our Hummvees were using WWII technology and getting our guys killed left and right). 

You seal off a border with  mines and infantry, just like in WWI and WWII and what we still do in Korea (with the South Koreans). 

Our military is mis-using our Reserves...they are Reserves not guys that are on repeated extended deployments.   Technically the military can do it, but morally they are using Reserves in place of missing "standing army" units that Clinton/Bush 41 mothballed. 

The Corner-Shot can fire a 40 mm grenade or semi-auto pistol;  the pistol has a kill range of 150 meters (precise) ; the grenade has a fragmentation range to 350 meters.  Many Special Forces units use it; undoubtedly Israel has Special Forces use it, since two x-Israeli Lt. Col/Major invented it. 

If a diesel sub can penetrate a Battle Group, then our nuke forces (whether surface or sub) are extremely vulnerable to upgraded WWII technology. 

Remember, the Sherman tank's front armour was no match against  iGerman 88's and Panther/Tiger tanks in WWII.  yet we won... Shermans were successful and the battle won, because we made many more Shermans than the Germans had 88's and Panthers/Tigers.  Numbers, Training, Logistics usually wins the war, plus dumb luck and lots of courage.  Today, we won't put up with casualties, so we need lighter, faster, quicker adaptable technologies to fit whatever task the military has at hand.   

We don't need the bestus most complex equipment out there (the Germans had that problem with their machine guns that they couldn't keep clean and they jammed regularly and required too many spare parts) - we need systems that are less expensive, less complex and require less repair and FLEXIBLE to use different battle systems as situations warrant. 

The Humvee moved men and material, it did not protect the men in Iraq on day one...very similar to the WWII Willis Jeep.  Heck the Marines are still using an APC that is almost 40 years old, right?  Stupid.  Chinook helicopter still flying, killing guys, way too old.  Tilt-Rotor - way too expensive, lots of guys were killed in development, yes it is great technically, but it is too expensive and too complex of a system. It will be another F-111 with wings falling off.  They are hardly used in Iraq.  Apache's are overkill, can't take AA fire (bad guys shot one down in Iraq) - they were built for anti-tank in Europe.  Great.  That war isn't going to be fought anytime soon, anymore. 

The most upgraded M1 tank can still be taken out by IED's  (but the guys will be safe inside).  The Stryker and recent MRAPs have been  blown up (but few if any casualties).  Why not develop robots that go over roads before convoys and find the stupid mines?  nooooo - too dang simple, nobody makes enuff money!  stupid stupid stupid.  Robotic APC's that find mines at 15 or 20 mph, that's where the technology should go to.  Why have trucks move equipment that require roads?  Why not develop  vehicles that don't need roads (except in mountains, obviously)?  We're still hung up on WWII track technology regarding this.  Simple piston driven Airlift and simpler  hovercraft (instead of the complex Navy hovercraft that won't work in many weather situations).   

Organizations need to change the way they think and be much quicker to respond and adapt to changing circumstances instead of being wedded to expensive, complex weapons systems that may resemble a future "Maginot Line"...imo...

I am not advocating anything (like a first strike) I am simply stating facts as I see them. Nice try, but I'd nuke you and your client in court, bubba.  LOL


DayTrader

[jm21-2]

Ahh, OK, make a DMZ around the Iraqi border. In a world where people are well aware of child-soldiers being used to clear land-mines with their bodies, I'm sure that'd go over well. I can see the headlines now... "25 horribly maimed childrens' bodies found dead in DMZ, killed by US mines."

Our military wasn't designed to be a police force, and thus their equipment wasn't designed for a police force. We kicked ass in the invasion, like we were supposed to. No one expected us to be in Iraq this long. The military has been slowly adapting to fit this new role now that it realizes it's stuck with it for the foreseeable future.

How many of your robotic APCs would it take to keep all the roads in Iraq clear of mines 24/7 (and consider only about .5% of deaths were caused by landmines, check out http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-13-iraq-casualties_N.htm)? Even if you meant to include IEDs when you said landmines, a lot (most?) of the IED deaths are when the crew is dismounted anyways. Unmanned sentries and bomb defusers will definitely help, as will robotic transports and UAVs. The military has been putting a lot of emphasis on all those. However, the new iRobot x700 warrior coming out still only moves at 12mph or so...not the greatest thing for clearing roads for transports. Better to use a remote controlled or robotic truck and who cares if you lose a few?

Hey, it'd be great if our soldiers got CornerShot. Give them full body armor and bullet-proof visors too! They should have at least as good of gear as SWAT teams, imho. Give them all XM25s too. Reality is that outfitting at least 150,000 soldiers with state-of-the art gear isn't cheap and we don't have the production facilities needed. None of those things will protect soldiers from tripping an IED when they rush into a room either.

The military is having trouble meeting the recruitment goals, hence stop-loss, drawing in reserves and national guard, shortages of mid-level officers, lowered requirements to get in, etc. If their budget allowed them to recruit more, what good would it do? The units that existed at the beginning of the war would have already cycled through so many times the soldiers either would have quit or it would be ridiculous. Just because you're active duty doesn't mean you should be deployed back-to-back many times in a row. If nothing else most people would go somewhat insane at that point. We are suffering because there is a shortage of NCOs because people won't keep on with so many deployments...the same thing that happened in 'Nam. As NCOs become less and less skilled, the percent with psychological damage from being deployed increases...you've got problems. Officers quit after their 3 years are up, so there is less and less talent in the mid-level. The longer this drags on, the higher the ranks that will be affected. Are we going to have officers make it to general just because there's no one to fill the slot since so many quit? You're almost guaranteed to get to Major right now in the Army. LTC is next...

Maybe if the military offered wages competitive with the mercenaries. Now that'd make for one hell of a military budget.

[daytrader]

All IED's (that blow up vehicles planted on roads/roadsides) are mines --- assuming the IED is "on" or "in" the ground, it is a form of 'landmine' ...things that blow up floating/tethered in water are also called "mines"...

Booby traps and IEDs are similar to mines in that they are designed to kill or incapacitate personnel. They are also emplaced to avoid detection and improve effectiveness. Most are victim-activated, but some may involve remote or command detonation architectures.

source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/ied.htm

After 31 months of fighting, IED's caused 50% of all U.S. deaths.  This was when there were 2,000 deaths to date.  Therefore, a 100% safety ratio against IED's would have lowered casualties at least by 1,000 to that point. 

source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102501987.html

The Corner-Shot can shoot a .45 calibre handgun, also....The .45 is the choice of many veterans (in past conflicts) for a sidearm....and it is the LOUDEST handgun on the gun range (haven't heard a .44 mag yet) and most accurately destructive that I've seen.  The Corner-Shot should be available for all battalions that face urban warfare.  Also, GPS should be available for every squad.  There was an instance where a squad was trapped in a house, taking fire from another house... and a tank was nearby...they radioed for support but the squad could not tell the tank what house NOT to blow up...cuz they didn't have a GPS...duh....$100 Magellen unit for each squad, should be standard issue. The squad nearly got wiped out because they could NOT tell the tank WHERE they were.  The tank commander was willing to blow up every house to find the bad guys that were firing on them  (probably not in the rules of engagement but they would have allowed it afterwards when the guys were saved). 

Hardly anyone lives out in the badlands by the Syrian/Iran borders with Iraq.  Our soldiers are out there for 8 weeks without a shower.  Therefore, not many kids will get blown up by mines...duh...that's why the call it a desert.....

The soldiers already have body armour - everyone in a combat zone has body armour, it is required. 

Judge rules...summary judgement to.....

DayTrader

[jm21-2]

"IEDS are similar to mines..."

Some are detonated by cell phones or other devices, which is not like a mine. Similar, but not the same.

I don't think any of the GPS tracking devices are fool-proof, but it'd be better than nothing. We have some climbers get stuck in the mountains and die every now and then, but the main company that makes GPS tracking devices does so for cargo, and the reliability is something like 60%. They were afraid of getting sued if they sold the device to people and it didn't work...the legislature here had to pass a special bill exempting them from liability to get them to sell it here.

It's a common tactic of some groups/armies to run kids through the mine fields to clear them. They do it in some of the [snip]tiest places on earth. It's not a matter of the region not having people living there, it's a matter of some group wanting to get through, conscripting some kids, and having them run through and set off the mines.

Soldiers get a vest, not a full suit.

[daytrader]

you freaking gotta be kidding me JM.....I had a off the shelf Lowrance GPS, it guided me/my yacht 272 nautical miles to a 30 ft wide channel 80 miles offshore in the Keys. This is the same technology that the military can get in a Magellan for about $100.  With CMAP technology I can tell you which channel marker is where and  what brand gasoline is at what dock. 

 Of course IED's are remote controlled, duh.  Tell me what a IED does that a mine doesn't, it blows up and kills people/things....similar....how about all those soldiers killed by booby-trapped dead bodies of children by the road.  They were killed by "mines". 

Of course our soldiers wear vests  - please show me a military that has full body armour for their infantry. 

DayTrader

 

[fathertime]

I had a off the shelf Lowrance GPS, it guided me/my yacht 272 nautical miles to a 30 ft wide channel 80 miles offshore in the Keys

Your yacht eh!  How about guiding me, Soltero and a couple others to your yacht with round trip tickets to Florida!  We will help you fill the yacht up with young babes.  I'll bring my collection of temporary tattoos so we can all score with the ladies!

Fathertime!

[jm21-2]

Now that I think about it, I think it might have used radio to pinpoint the location, not GPS. Less battery use or something? Or something about the conditions in the mountains? I can't remember the details all that well. My garmin doesn't work inside though, or if there are lots of tall buildings/trees it seems.

OK, "it blows up people/things." That covers every explosive in the book.

I didn't say any military gave their guys full body armor. I said that we should, or at least more than just a vest. I think it's ridiculous that SWAT is all decked out, gets great pay, LEAP, etc. and all because they face the danger of some pissed off guy with a pistol. Our soldiers don't get [snip] for pay and get sent out with much less gear to fight enemy soldiers, suicide bombers, and terrorists, during a 15 month deployment in a [snip]hole country working crazy hours. You talk about getting more boots on the ground...we'd have them if we respected our service people more. And that doesn't just mean some lip-service, but actually taking steps to make sure they're safe, well-equipped, and well-provided for.

But what do we do instead?

Fox, 21, from the Pittsburgh suburb of Mount Lebanon was partially blinded in his right eye and sustained a back injury in a roadside bomb explosion in Baqubah in May. He returned to the U.S. two months later and received a discharge.

In late October, Fox got a letter from the Army seeking repayment of part of his enlistment bonus because he had only completed about a year of his three-year service.

Another letter arrived a week later warning he could be charged interest if he didn’t make a payment within 30 days.

Some soldiers who were wounded in war are now being ordered to pay back part of their signing bonus.

For a 20-year-old Washington soldier, death and destruction was too much.

The MP was working blockades in Baghdad. One day she was so traumatized by what she saw, she had to be airlifted out.

"She saw more combat than I saw in 2 years," says war veteran Skip Dreps. He's the director of the Northwest Paralyzed Veterans of America. It's Dreps' mission to make sure every soldier gets what they've earned.

"She was medically evacuated to the Baghdad hospital; within one week she was sent to Madigan Army Hospital in Washington, and within a week sent home with a personality disorder - and a week later sent a bill," says Dreps.

The threatening letter Kari got warns if she doesn't repay $2,505.70 of her enlistment bonus, the Army will send a bill collector after her. The Department of Defense is clear: the amount owed is considered the "unearned portion of her enlistment bonus".

[daytrader]

What do we do in the face of your perfect reasoning?

Why, vote for Hitlery and demand goverment healthcare!  LOL

Don't worry about the recruits they volunteered and the re-enlistment rates are going very well.  We're winning over there and the guys and guyettes are, for the most part, happy. 

Now, if we can keep the Green Zone safe (4 guys just got killed today) that would be swell.  Basra is under control, Sadir is pretty much defanged, and the P.M. has gotten reconciliation going. 

Sorry, FT, I am between boats..and I am going steady, so I am a happy camper.  I'm not really sure what I want (she likes boats too)...I might get a small one (big outboard for a 24 ft cuddy cabin for the Keys and Intracoastal) and get a Blue Water Yacht and berth it in the DR. 

The photo is of my first boat (my lawyer called it a mini-yacht - 32 ft from end to end, 330 mile cruising range, it could handle six ft seas, 18 inch draft and do 35 knots) - it was a blast and the best thing to have on the Gulf Coast of Florida.  With a tuna tower it would have been the perfect fishing boat (but not for tournaments because it wasn't real fast).  This was the boat I took down to the Keys...the average depth was 3 ft or less...can't have a big boat down there, on the Atlantic side yes. Cruising speed was 24 knots and 12 gallons an hr. 

DayTrader

This is a pix of a typical Blue Water Yacht...offshore living, No condo needed...

[Dave H]

Hey daytrader,

Nice boats! I would like to get something with a long cruising range in the Philippines. I would need some fire power and/or speed to outrun or sink pirates.  Not really a problem where I would go..far from the Strait of Malacca, Indonesia, and Southwest Philippines. I might just get a pumpboat and pretend to be a local.

Dave H.