Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What military force types are most important today?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by Dear_Leader View Post
    All wromen like to give Dear Leader speciar peepy-peepy look:







    Because Dear Leader biggest badass in Bestest Kolea, nobody have testricrals to attack Bestest Korlea. Like fathrel, like son:

    [IMG]https://sociorocketnewsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/kim-jong-un-photoshop-6.jpg?w=640&h=455[/IMG]
    Rike fathel, rike son, rike-
    Mao tse tung...
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...719-story.html

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...735312656.html

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Dear_Leader View Post
    I have Infantly:






    I have Speciar Fowces:

    Image result for north korean women soldiers




    I have Ail Fowce:






    I have Navry:

    Image result for north korean women soldiers
    And when those fail to dislodge the enemy, there are the special commandos;






    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    It's nice to see that Dear Leader voted for every category...
    Of course, when money(Debt) is no object, and ....

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    The F-35 could use aerial refueling to get to Afghanistan. A Carrier has Tanker aircraft on board. The aircraft could take off and then fuel up near the Carrier and then go on the mission. Amphibious Carriers do not carry Tanker aircraft, they would depend on Tankers from someone else. The Americans have bases around Afghanistan they can base Tanker aircraft.

    Pruitt
    All valid points......joint operations are the way to go.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post
    what's with life long civilians always trying to validate their opinions or thoughts based on their relatives' service?
    This raises another question; what do you have against "life long civilians"?

    Does my wife's opinion mean nothing? She wasn't in the service but she is a critical piece of our family life. She was at San Diego waving me off and there greeting me when I returned. She was at our daughter's commissioning and dropped her of at Norfolk for her forward deployment. By the looks of it she will be at her son's commissioning as he starts a medical field in the Army.

    Is her opinion less valid than yours because it is based on her experiences with her husband and two children?

    Is it less valid than yours when she navigates Tri Care or the VA for her family?

    Is our neighbor's opinion less valid because they come from Bolivia and have no relatives in the service?

    I'll give you a hint, it isn't less valid.

    In boot camp they pump us up with pride in our service. Eventually we learn that civilian opinions are very important to us. I have no doubt that sometime in your Navy career you hosted civilians on your ship. Possible if you left CONUS, you were involved in some kind of volunteer work during a port visit.

    You screwed up your assessment of my opinion regarding amphibious groups. You screwed up in your assessment of the F-35. The reality is the military is joint. The Amphibious Group is without a doubt the best example of this.

    The services can't do any mission without the assistance of another service. The boot camp service motivation is only designed to instill pride, not contempt for the other services and especially not for civilians.

    I wish you would have spent more time in the service, you would have learned this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    The F-35 could use aerial refueling to get to Afghanistan. A Carrier has Tanker aircraft on board. The aircraft could take off and then fuel up near the Carrier and then go on the mission. Amphibious Carriers do not carry Tanker aircraft, they would depend on Tankers from someone else. The Americans have bases around Afghanistan they can base Tanker aircraft.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post
    oh so you're a marine who is butthurt about being part of the navy? that explains it all.
    No, I'm a retired Marine that has more sea time than a sailor who claims he was on the Truxton from 2011-2015. Let me guess; you were so salty that they didn't require you to go to boot Camp or an A School. As soon as you checked on the Truxton, she immediately went to sea and didn't return to port until 2015....

    Butthurt, no, not at all. As I already posted my daughter is a LtJG on a DDG.....you would call her Ma'am.

    Let go of the bootcamp interservice rivalry games.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post

    a hint, that short take off is still using the fuel guzzling vertical thrust. that's why the exhaust is pointed downwards. that's why the covers on top are open. to allow for more vertical thrust.
    Yet somehow the F-35 managed to go all the way to Afghanistan and Iraq.....are you now going to claim they were only providing CAP for the Essex?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post

    your link said nothing about aircraft ranges.
    The article clearly states where the Essex was and where the F-35s dropped ordinance.

    Leave a comment:


  • General_Jacke
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    Life long civilians? I probably have more sea time than you and I was never stationed on a ship as ship's company.
    oh so you're a marine who is butthurt about being part of the navy? that explains it all.

    Leave a comment:


  • General_Jacke
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    Did you watch your video? It proves my point that it isn't employed using vertical take off.

    A hint...... When they say short take off....that doesn't mean vertical.
    a hint, that short take off is still using the fuel guzzling vertical thrust. that's why the exhaust is pointed downwards. that's why the covers on top are open. to allow for more vertical thrust.

    Leave a comment:


  • General_Jacke
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    Per Google...

    I provided a report on a deployment that shows your assertations here are inaccurate.

    I'd believe historically correct operational experiences over your Google capabilities.
    your link said nothing about aircraft ranges...you keep referencing an article that does nothing to actually support you or discredit anything i have said...

    you have this weird obsession with the fact that they have finally been used, when i never once said they haven't been used on a deployment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post
    per google

    so lets see here...nothing i've said has been inaccurate, the F35B found on amphibs in very limited numbers is a significant decrease in capability from the C found on CATOBAR carriers[/URL]
    Per Google...

    I provided a report on a deployment that shows your assertations here are inaccurate.

    I'd believe historically correct operational experiences over your Google capabilities.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post

    here is a video, the B
    Did you watch your video? It proves my point that it isn't employed using vertical take off.

    A hint...... When they say short take off....that doesn't mean vertical.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post
    what's with life long civilians always trying to validate their opinions or thoughts based on their relatives' service?
    Life long civilians? I probably have more sea time than you and I was never stationed on a ship as ship's company.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X