Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

GOP offers 1 month continuing resolution and 6 years CHIP funding

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, renoskier said:

But dammit poke, couldn't the same be said if a few Republicans would have worked independently with Obama?

I remember Behnor and Obama coming to agree on deals twice and Obama reneging.

Obama never compromised on one thing his entire presidency.  He certainly never offered republicans something as big as immigration reform or CHIP funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, mysfit said:

The GOP controls congress and the WH. Any shutdown is on them.

 

I fully support the dems refusing to go along unless there is a fix for DACA. And no money for a border wall. Let mexico pay for that. 

Did any of you morons pay attention in government class or watch sesame street?

The republicans need 9 democratic votes in the senate to do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Back in the day the battleship was king then came the carrier. Eventually the carrier won't be king of the seas anymore. But right now it is. 

Lasers are already active and in service. http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/17/politics/us-navy-drone-laser-weapon/index.html

 

Of course the flip side to my comments on lasers and railguns is if antiaircraft gets that advanced... aircraft just won't be as big of a factor (or at least it will look more like Warthogs and helicopters flying nape of the earth because anything flying high will be annihilated). 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

Of course the flip side to my comments on lasers and railguns is if antiaircraft gets that advanced... aircraft just won't be as big of a factor (or at least it will look more like Warthogs and helicopters flying nape of the earth because anything flying high will be annihilated). 

Or airframes will be coated with a new material that shrouds the aircraft and renders lasers ineffective. You know as well as I do that when weapons advance, countermeasures advance. 

Railguns are what interests me more than lasers. The power requirements for railguns are the issue. Unless we find a way to power them other than a reactor I find it hard to believe that a ship with multiple railguns is in our immediate future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Or airframes will be coated with a new material that shrouds the aircraft and renders lasers ineffective. You know as well as I do that when weapons advance, countermeasures advance. 

Railguns are what interests me more than lasers. The power requirements for railguns are the issue. Unless we find a way to power them other than a reactor I find it hard to believe that a ship with multiple railguns is in our immediate future. 

Kinetic bombardment from Low Earth Orbit has always fascinated me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

To me aircraft carriers (I'm looking at two now out my office window) are the epitome of "fighting the last war." They are great (if hugely expensive) for projecting power over defenseless parts of the world. In a war with a near-peer, and specifically the Chinese, they would be the targets of a swarm of missiles and I simply do not believe our missile defenses will be capable of intercepting every single one. And the effects of a missile strike on a carrier, with all the fuel and ordnance it carries, would be devastating. Billions of dollars in Davey Jones' locker.

I'll leave our nuclear triad strategy to the experts.  An aircraft carrier is part of a carrier strike group involving numerous types of ships and weaponry, including a nuclear sub.  Just like our land bases, if fired upon all nukes, aircraft, etc will be put in the air and the guilty country/party will be gone.  Our forces today serve as deterrents more than anything.  A carrier is a floating town with up to 5,000 service men and women.  It includes a hospital, a prison, a water and sewer system, an airport, food service, etc.  Surveillance for this strike group is significant.  Rader, sonar, air, surface and below the surface.

Carrier strike groups are involved in so very many things.  Delivering boots on the ground. goods, supplies, military support, etc.  I think there's significant value over and above "fighting war".

I don't know how to measure the value.  You may be right.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Or airframes will be coated with a new material that shrouds the aircraft and renders lasers ineffective. You know as well as I do that when weapons advance, countermeasures advance. 

Railguns are what interests me more than lasers. The power requirements for railguns are the issue. Unless we find a way to power them other than a reactor I find it hard to believe that a ship with multiple railguns is in our immediate future. 

I don't know, develop x-ray lasers, ultraviolet lasers, and visible light lasers that all have high energy and it will be difficult to find a material that does a good job on all of them.

A ship with a railgun doesn't seem to need multiple. Besides, reactors seem like the way to go for ships, anyway. I could see capacitor technology increasing to allow use with other powerplants, though. 

16 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Kinetic bombardment from Low Earth Orbit has always fascinated me.

I see that more as a replacement for attacking fixed positions. I can't figure out a way for the projectile to travel fast enough to hit a target that is moving and it would still have slower response time than, say, artillery would.

Of course, if the projectiles had some guidance capability...

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

China is far more antagonistic economically. Don't forget China is building up their blue water navy at an extremely fast pace and they are building islands all over the South China Sea. Their force projection is increasing and they see the western Pacific as theirs. 

China's economy is dead, completely and totally, without America.  I'm not worried about China.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, pokebball said:

I'll leave our nuclear triad strategy to the experts.  An aircraft carrier is part of a carrier strike group involving numerous types of ships and weaponry, including a nuclear sub.  Just like our land bases, if fired upon all nukes, aircraft, etc will be put in the air and the guilty country/party will be gone.  Our forces today serve as deterrents more than anything.  A carrier is a floating town with up to 5,000 service men and women.  It includes a hospital, a prison, a water and sewer system, an airport, food service, etc.  Surveillance for this strike group is significant.  Rader, sonar, air, surface and below the surface.

Carrier strike groups are involved in so very many things.  Delivering boots on the ground. goods, supplies, military support, etc.  I think there's significant value over and above "fight war".

I don't know how to measure the value.  You may be right.

A carrier task force is WWII tech.  It is worthless unless you are fighting useless third world countries.   It is just a huge waste of dollars.

It just can't be defended, a diesel sub with a nuclear torpedo can take out the whole group and you can't defend against it.   If we were ever to fight North Korea I would fully expect a carrier to be sunk by them, it is just to juicy and easy a target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I don't know, develop x-ray lasers, ultraviolet lasers, and visible light lasers that all have high energy and it will be difficult to find a material that does a good job on all of them.

A ship with a railgun doesn't seem to need multiple. Besides, reactors seem like the way to go for ships, anyway. I could see capacitor technology increasing to allow use with other powerplants, though. 

I see that more as a replacement for attacking fixed positions. I can't figure out a way for the projectile to travel fast enough to hit a target that is moving and it would still have slower response time than, say, artillery would.

Of course, if the projectiles had some guidance capability...

From the railgun reports I have read they take a tremendous amount of energy. In a combat situation with mulitple railguns in operation as well as powering all of the other ships systems the reports I read said that current reactor capacity outside a dual reactor like a Ford Class carrier has would not be enough for a sustained fight. And we would need to design a new class of ship for railguns with upgraded powerplants or reactors. We don't have any nuclear powered cruisers in the inventory anymore.  But I'm not a expert obviously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pokebball said:

I'll leave our nuclear triad strategy to the experts.  An aircraft carrier is part of a carrier strike group involving numerous types of ships and weaponry, including a nuclear sub.  Just like our land bases, if fired upon all nukes, aircraft, etc will be put in the air and the guilty country/party will be gone.  Our forces today serve as deterrents more than anything.  A carrier is a floating town with up to 5,000 service men and women.  It includes a hospital, a prison, a water and sewer system, an airport, food service, etc.  Surveillance for this strike group is significant.  Rader, sonar, air, surface and below the surface.

Carrier strike groups are involved in so very many things.  Delivering boots on the ground. goods, supplies, military support, etc.  I think there's significant value over and above "fighting war".

I don't know how to measure the value.  You may be right.

I know how to measure the cost of building one and the cost of replacing one.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

A carrier task force is WWII tech.  It is worthless unless you are fighting useless third world countries.   It is just a huge waste of dollars.

It just can't be defended, a diesel sub with a nuclear torpedo can take out the whole group and you can't defend against it.   If we were ever to fight North Korea I would fully expect a carrier to be sunk by them, it is just to juicy and easy a target.

I dated a woman a few years ago that was a math genius. Her specialty was radar and sonar research for a large defense contractor. She told me that the current generation of Chinese submarines are so quiet that they have been known to surface in the middle of US carrier groups undetected. Obviously not something that the DoD wants publicized.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I dated a woman a few years ago that was a math genius. Her specialty was radar and sonar research for a large defense contractor. She told me that the current generation of Chinese submarines are so quiet that they have been known to surface in the middle of US carrier groups undetected. Obviously not something that the DoD wants publicized.

Like I said earlier in the thread.  War machines that are only effective against a bunch of arabs or "shit hole" countries are a complete waste in the event of global conflict.  I guess you could argue that carriers can provide near instant relief and aid and are useful because a global conflict with super powers is not likely but still the cost is crazy.  However the Virginia class nuclear sub?  Rock on with that shit.  

Slightly OT but I wonder what somebody like Musk could come up with if tasked with missile defense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, pokerider said:

Democrats are gambling that a gov't shutdown helps them politically, and that no DACA deal will make republicans look bad.  

Regardless what happens in the House, the Dems will almost assuredly not win the Senate.  Are they going to try and do nothing for 3 more years?  

Compared to the obstructionist policies of the GOP the previous 8 years I think the Democrats have been far more willing to negotiate. I believe the GOP makes it impossible to negotiate by insisting on including things that make talks difficult at best and intolerable at worst.

But you don't see the GOP obstructionism during the Obama administration because you agreed with it.  And you now call it "obstruction" because you disagree.

So essentially you are a good example of why there is little to no common ground between the two groups.

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I dated a woman a few years ago that was a math genius. Her specialty was radar and sonar research for a large defense contractor. She told me that the current generation of Chinese submarines are so quiet that they have been known to surface in the middle of US carrier groups undetected. Obviously not something that the DoD wants publicized.

That’s terrifying 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I dated a woman a few years ago that was a math genius. Her specialty was radar and sonar research for a large defense contractor. She told me that the current generation of Chinese submarines are so quiet that they have been known to surface in the middle of US carrier groups undetected. Obviously not something that the DoD wants publicized.

The other thing is they operate in the open ocean.  My understanding was for decades the Russians had a nuclear boat under our aircraft carriers everywhere they went.

If they shoot first, the carrier group has 0 chance.

 

There is nothing quieter than a diesel boat sitting there operating on batteries.  If the North Koreans who have dozens of them put out a picket line, eventually our carrier is going to come close enough to be take out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

How sweet do they need it?  When the dems held power and were fuming about GOP obstructionism they never came close to showing the willingness to compromise the GOP is currently showing. 

 

20 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The GOP was never offered anything.  That is not true in reverse currently.

 

21 hours ago, mugtang said:

1 month CR in exchange for a Dem priority of long term CHIP funding seems like a pretty sweet deal to me :shrug:  

What is really being offered by the GOP in these negotiations? CHIP and DACA protections? Those are things that the WH claims to be supportive and want to get passed. That is not how negotiations work. "Gove me everything I want and I will give you something we both want. Unless the WH is being dishonest about wanting CHIP and DACA fixed. They should offer Trump funding for his wall in return for a whole lot more that they want like increased domestic spending to match defense spending and/or TPS protections extended for Haitians and El Salvadorans.

The WH likes to talk about negotiating but it seems to me that means"Come around and do what we want or we won't pass these common sense laws that everyone wants"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tspoke said:

 

 

What is really being offered by the GOP in these negotiations? CHIP and DACA protections? Those are things that the WH claims to be supportive and want to get passed. That is not how negotiations work. "Gove me everything I want and I will give you something we both want. Unless the WH is being dishonest about wanting CHIP and DACA fixed. They should offer Trump funding for his wall in return for a whole lot more that they want like increased domestic spending to match defense spending and/or TPS protections extended for Haitians and El Salvadorans.

The WH likes to talk about negotiating but it seems to me that means"Come around and do what we want or we won't pass these common sense laws that everyone wants"

This is a good take.

However, here's how negotiations do work in the real world:  using classic negotiation strategy, today President Trump is using the "takeaway"; by now saying that CHIP shouldn't be a part of a short term stop gap.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/us/politics/trump-upsets-republican-strategy-to-avoid-shutdown.html?emc=edit_na_20180118&nl=breaking-news&nlid=68276061&ref=cta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tspoke said:

 

 

What is really being offered by the GOP in these negotiations? CHIP and DACA protections? Those are things that the WH claims to be supportive and want to get passed. That is not how negotiations work. "Gove me everything I want and I will give you something we both want. Unless the WH is being dishonest about wanting CHIP and DACA fixed. They should offer Trump funding for his wall in return for a whole lot more that they want like increased domestic spending to match defense spending and/or TPS protections extended for Haitians and El Salvadorans.

The WH likes to talk about negotiating but it seems to me that means"Come around and do what we want or we won't pass these common sense laws that everyone wants"

Negotiations do happen from the position you hold though.  The GOP holds more control so they are in a stronger negotiating position.  The GOP certainly doesn't have overwhelming control but they are in a stronger position.

 

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...