The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: NHSparky on June 19, 2012, 08:28:38 AM

Title: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: NHSparky on June 19, 2012, 08:28:38 AM
Quote
DainBramaged (34,252 posts)

 We have 42 active Los Angles class hunter-killer submarines
why?
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/sbf/fleet_10.htm


Because dipshits like you don't seem to understand that we used to have in excess of 100, plus nearly 50 boomers.  Even as late as 20 years ago when I left my first boat, we had 34 boomers and 89 fast boats.

At one point we had more than 40 boats between just Pearl and San Diego, to say nothing of Vallejo, Charleston, Norfolk, and Groton--and those were just fast boat ports.

Quote
11 Bravo (13,616 posts)
4. They might attack Pearl Harbor again!

I guess you weren't smart enough to understand the word, "deterrence," you shit-filled phony ****ing meatsack.

Quote
bongbong (2,546 posts)
11. The MIC

Somebody has to provide jobs for all the repigs in Red States.


EB is in Groton.  Most of the shipyards are in Dem states.  **** you, tard.

But at least one of the DUmmies seems to have a clue:


Quote
hack89 (14,490 posts)
46. Because the US economy depends on it?

We are absolutely dependent on the free movement of goods on the seas. The easiest way to attack the US economy would be in the Straits of Hormuz or the Straits of Malacca. Stop ships from moving freely on the oceans and our economy grinds to a stop.


Sadly, most don't.

Too bad none of ya'll DUmmies had the balls to do what I did for the better part of a decade.  You'd have been shitting yourselves before the COB ever announced, "Station the Maneuvering Watch!"

And of course, the talk swings to Arec Barwin's "epic" guanofest, "The Hunt For Red October":

Quote
Meiko (737 posts)
36. That was a pretty good movie

did you like it?

Nope.  Nothing like the book.  And don't even get me started on that shitpile of celluloid known as Crimson Tide.

And GUESS WHO makes an appearance!!!!

Quote
nadinbrzezinski (105,094 posts)
44. Wrong, women now serve on subs

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/22/women-to-begin-serving-on-u-s-submarines/

The LA Class, due to how it is built, will not see women... but both Seawolf and Virginia will  

Add manning expert and detailer to her resume.  Uh, nads?  No they won't.  And how do you feel about the fact that three of those 18 officers have already been shitcanned for putting in phony travel claims?   What?  You didn't hear about that?  Maybe because Big Navy has put the ****ing clampdown on any information on this little "experiment" which I personally predict is going to quietly go away after the first group of women either gets out, doesn't screen for Department Head, or converts over to SWO (surface Navy.)
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on June 19, 2012, 09:30:33 AM
Quote
DainBramaged (34,252 posts)

 We have 42 active Los Angles class hunter-killer submarines
why?


40 of them are there to look for golf balls Obama hit into the ocean from seaside courses, natch.  Two are for hunting down and killing stuff that needs hunting down and killing, also as crew trainers for the golfball retrievers.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: NHSparky on June 19, 2012, 09:48:23 AM
Oh, and for the record, DUmmies--10 of those are going away by 2017.  They can't build Virginia-class boats fast enough to keep up.

Finally, question for ya, nads--why the **** would we want to spend literally tens of millions of dollars on retrofitting VA class boats to make them habitable for women when 1--they're WORSE than a 688 as far as habitability, which were FAR worse than a 637 (and if you had ever listened to your husband, you'd ****ing know that) 2--there's no indication that the women in submarines experiment (and that's all it is at this point--an EXPERIMENT) is or will work, 3--we don't have the ****ing money in the first place, 4--Obumbles wants to cut HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS from defense spending?
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: thundley4 on June 19, 2012, 10:52:05 AM
Quote
hack89 (14,490 posts)
46. Because the US economy depends on it?

We are absolutely dependent on the free movement of goods on the seas. The easiest way to attack the US economy would be in the Straits of Hormuz or the Straits of Malacca. Stop ships from moving freely on the oceans and our economy grinds to a stop.

If Obama gets his way, the UN will be taking over keeping the seas and oceans safe.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: Bad Dog on June 19, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
I bet the "silent service" will beat the knocked up ratio of the surface fleet in no time flat.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: obumazombie on June 19, 2012, 11:42:24 AM
I bet the "silent service" will beat the knocked up ratio of the surface fleet in no time flat.
There's no better way out of a miserable position for a woman in today's military than a well timed pregnancy.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: movie buff on June 19, 2012, 12:47:14 PM

Nope.  Nothing like the book.  And don't even get me started on that shitpile of celluloid known as Crimson Tide.


LOL, when I was a kid, either Mad Magazine or its then- rival Cracked Magazine (I forget which) did a satire of that movie in one of its issues, and called it "Crimson Turd."
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: oldcrow on June 19, 2012, 01:10:47 PM


Because dipshits like you don't seem to understand that we used to have in excess of 100, plus nearly 50 boomers.  Even as late as 20 years ago when I left my first boat, we had 34 boomers and 89 fast boats.

At one point we had more than 40 boats between just Pearl and San Diego, to say nothing of Vallejo, Charleston, Norfolk, and Groton--and those were just fast boat ports.

I guess you weren't smart enough to understand the word, "deterrence," you shit-filled phony ****ing meatsack.
 

EB is in Groton.  Most of the shipyards are in Dem states.  **** you, tard.

But at least one of the DUmmies seems to have a clue:

 

Sadly, most don't.

Too bad none of ya'll DUmmies had the balls to do what I did for the better part of a decade.  You'd have been shitting yourselves before the COB ever announced, "Station the Maneuvering Watch!"

And of course, the talk swings to Arec Barwin's "epic" guanofest, "The Hunt For Red October":

Nope.  Nothing like the book.  And don't even get me started on that shitpile of celluloid known as Crimson Tide.

And GUESS WHO makes an appearance!!!!

Add manning expert and detailer to her resume.  Uh, nads?  No they won't.  And how do you feel about the fact that three of those 18 officers have already been shitcanned for putting in phony travel claims?   What?  You didn't hear about that?  Maybe because Big Navy has put the ****ing clampdown on any information on this little "experiment" which I personally predict is going to quietly go away after the first group of women either gets out, doesn't screen for Department Head, or converts over to SWO (surface Navy.)

Man these DUmmies really piss me off. I have on my desktop a paperweight my grandfather gave me, it's an NSIA paperweight, that says "Pearl Harbor Day-  Dec 7, 1981, "WE REMEMBER". That's good enough reason for me.

Furthermore, ever notice how all these DUmmies are constitutional experts ,yet when it comes to the ONE ****ing thing that our government is supposed to be paying for they question it. Bunch of door humping retards over there at the DUmp.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: NHSparky on June 19, 2012, 08:29:12 PM
What kills me is that these idiots have no idea how instrumental the Silent Service was in WWII, and how it remained so to the present day.

DUmmies, and those not DUmmies--I highly recommend the book "Blind Man's Bluff."  You might come away with a VASTLY different opinion.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: BlueStateSaint on June 20, 2012, 04:17:28 AM
What kills me is that these idiots have no idea how instrumental the Silent Service was in WWII, and how it remained so to the present day.

DUmmies, and those not DUmmies--I highly recommend the book "Blind Man's Bluff."  You might come away with a VASTLY different opinion.

I've read that book.  Talk about balls!  Those guys had 'em.  (Sort of wondering what happened to that old Seawolf--can't remember when it was retired.)
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: JohnnyReb on June 20, 2012, 05:42:34 AM
What kills me is that these idiots have no idea how instrumental the Silent Service was in WWII, and how it remained so to the present day.

DUmmies, and those not DUmmies--I highly recommend the book "Blind Man's Bluff."  You might come away with a VASTLY different opinion.

From moldy old memory.....they were 5% of the navy, sunk 50% of the Japanese ships that were sunk and suffered 25% of the navy casualties.

How did I do?
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: NHSparky on June 20, 2012, 08:49:45 AM
From moldy old memory.....they were 5% of the navy, sunk 50% of the Japanese ships that were sunk and suffered 25% of the navy casualties.

How did I do?

Almost dead on in your numbers.  And it was less than a 50/50 chance they'd survive five war patrols.  Only the German U-boat sailors had a higher casualty rate.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: NHSparky on June 20, 2012, 08:54:20 AM
I've read that book.  Talk about balls!  Those guys had 'em.  (Sort of wondering what happened to that old Seawolf--can't remember when it was retired.)

There have been three boats named Seawolf--the first one was a WWII boat sunk, possibly by friendly fire, the one you're thinking of was more of a test platform (she was the only sodium-cooled reactor) and was decommed in the late 1980's.

Halibut was the "original" SpecOp boat, although ALL submarines have the capability of performing similar tasks.  What EXACTLY they do...   :whistling:
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: DefiantSix on June 20, 2012, 09:03:30 AM
I've read that book.  Talk about balls!  Those guys had 'em.  (Sort of wondering what happened to that old Seawolf--can't remember when it was retired.)

I remember seeing Seawolf in mothballs at Bremerton in the late '80s/early '90s, I think.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: BlueStateSaint on June 20, 2012, 09:22:27 AM
There have been three boats named Seawolf--the first one was a WWII boat sunk, possibly by friendly fire, the one you're thinking of was more of a test platform (she was the only sodium-cooled reactor) and was decommed in the late 1980's.

Halibut was the "original" SpecOp boat, although ALL submarines have the capability of performing similar tasks.  What EXACTLY they do...   :whistling:

It's a "need to know" thing, and a lot of people don't--me, for example.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: Aristotelian on June 20, 2012, 04:12:08 PM
For any DUmmies who cast aspersion on a submarine fleet I have two words and only two words '"General Belgrano".
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: DefiantSix on June 20, 2012, 04:16:53 PM
For any DUmmies who cast aspersion on a submarine fleet I have two words and only two words '"General Belgrano".

And, if I'm not mistaken, Argentina was - courtesy of the Perons and their successors - the socialist utopia that DUmbshits far and wide dream about turning the US into.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: JohnnyReb on June 20, 2012, 05:07:03 PM
Almost dead on in your numbers.  And it was less than a 50/50 chance they'd survive five war patrols.  Only the German U-boat sailors had a higher casualty rate.

I think the German lost like 75% of their submariners.

2 or 3 years ago I did a lot of reading about subs...have forgotten most of it. I'm just glad someone can do it because I don't think I could stand being shut up in one of them.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: Bad Dog on June 20, 2012, 05:22:44 PM
I think the German lost like 75% of their submariners.

2 or 3 years ago I did a lot of reading about subs...have forgotten most of it. I'm just glad someone can do it because I don't think I could stand being shut up in one of them.

At least they're going to be coed now.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: JohnnyReb on June 20, 2012, 05:40:24 PM
At least they're going to be coed now.

With my luck, they would all look like Nadin and Helen Thomas with the temperament and mental aptitude of Nancy Pelosei and Hillary Clinton. I'd be trying to dig my way out of that underwater coffin with a spoon.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: Bad Dog on June 20, 2012, 05:42:10 PM
With my luck, they would all look like Nadin and Helen Thomas with the temperament and mental aptitude of Nancy Pelosei and Hillary Clinton. I'd be trying to dig my way out of that underwater coffin with a spoon.

You would be surprised how much they would improve after six months under the polar ice cap.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: vesta111 on June 20, 2012, 05:50:34 PM
I think the German lost like 75% of their submariners.

2 or 3 years ago I did a lot of reading about subs...have forgotten most of it. I'm just glad someone can do it because I don't think I could stand being shut up in one of them.

Somewhere I remember reading about the problems the subs had with the torpedo's, the firing mechanism was faulty and for the first year of the war we lost a large number of subs for that reason.  

Heck of a time both grandfathers worked at the Kittery base and it was 18 hour days  7 days a week turning out a sub every 2 months.   Grandpas told me of the riggers having a still out back and the workers getting a drink from time to time to keep working.

I remember the cirgar boxes both grandpas had that were full of medalions with the names of the boats that they built, paper circles with the name of the boat with a gold tassel attached.   Dozens and dozens of them, most did not come back.

Once we figured out the problem of why the torpedo's did not fire, the sub service went Tallie ho to help protect us.

We won the war  with the Pig Boats, and today we are a different kind of Silent Service.   We are a deterrent armed with teeth.  Our Fast Attacks protect the Boomers and it is a silent and deadly force we have.

Our best defence, one that give our enemy pause to get nasty with us.  
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: T-Monay820 on June 20, 2012, 06:05:45 PM
In fairness, most of the people are telling those few fanatics who think we don't need a sub force to STFU. Only a handful are hanging in there without any evidence other than "paranoia" to support their claims. Fortunately, the people who manage the Navy are well aware of Iran, NK, China, and Russia and I don't see subs going away anytime soon.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: JohnnyReb on June 20, 2012, 06:09:04 PM
  Dozens and dozens of them, most did not come back.

Once we figured out the problem of why the torpedo's did not fire, the sub service went Tallie ho to help protect us.

.  


There was a problem with the early torpedo's that the Navy brass would believe...but the biggest losses were due to a big mouth democrat congress critter revealing the best depth for the Japanese to set their depth charges for.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: I_B_Perky on June 20, 2012, 06:46:07 PM


Because dipshits like you don't seem to understand that we used to have in excess of 100, plus nearly 50 boomers.  Even as late as 20 years ago when I left my first boat, we had 34 boomers and 89 fast boats.

At one point we had more than 40 boats between just Pearl and San Diego, to say nothing of Vallejo, Charleston, Norfolk, and Groton--and those were just fast boat ports.

I guess you weren't smart enough to understand the word, "deterrence," you shit-filled phony ****ing meatsack.
 

EB is in Groton.  Most of the shipyards are in Dem states.  **** you, tard.



Well Sparky, the guy that lived across the street would BS with me from time to time about his service in WW2 on a boat over a beer or two. And yes... I learned real quick that they are called "boats"!!!  :-)

You have my respect sir.  No damned way I would get in one of them submersible coffins.  :usflag: :usflag:
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: miskie on June 20, 2012, 07:21:32 PM
Quote from: DainBramaged (34,252 posts)

 We have 42 active Los Angles class hunter-killer submarines
why?

(http://honeykid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/164411313.jpg)
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: I_B_Perky on June 20, 2012, 08:19:38 PM
What kills me is that these idiots have no idea how instrumental the Silent Service was in WWII, and how it remained so to the present day.

DUmmies, and those not DUmmies--I highly recommend the book "Blind Man's Bluff."  You might come away with a VASTLY different opinion.

You are exactly right Sparky. Wasn't for them, the US would have had a much harder time defeating the Japs. They took out the Japs shipping and that hurt them so bad that couldn't supply their navy and their land forces.

The guy across the street told me to read Harry Homewood. Bought me Silent Sea I think it was. He had more... Final Harbor and I can't remember what the others in the series were. It's fiction, but he said it was pretty close. Never heard of Blind Man's Bluff but the HH series was great.

It goes into some detail about how the Admirals got onto the sub captains about how they weren't taking care of the torpedos that did not work. It was a hell of a series of books. 3 or 4 if I remember correctly. Too long ago to remember. It was fiction, but it was good. Guy that wrote them was on the boats.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: Airwolf on June 20, 2012, 11:01:09 PM
The only submarine Nads knows anything about is this one.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sU7XPiqn5dI/Sm8zRhYg0yI/AAAAAAAABaM/F91-YEJAS2Q/s400/seaview.jpg)

Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: obumazombie on June 20, 2012, 11:07:07 PM
The only submarine Nads knows anything about is this one.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sU7XPiqn5dI/Sm8zRhYg0yI/AAAAAAAABaM/F91-YEJAS2Q/s400/seaview.jpg)


Where is the flying sub ? I used to love that show.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: txradioguy on June 21, 2012, 04:58:24 AM
What kills me is that these idiots have no idea how instrumental the Silent Service was in WWII, and how it remained so to the present day.

DUmmies, and those not DUmmies--I highly recommend the book "Blind Man's Bluff."  You might come away with a VASTLY different opinion.

It's not just the pig boat guys that the DUmmies and the left don't understand Sparky...it's the military in general.

Like the caller to Thom Hartmann's show the other day...they want Obama to just do away with the military entirely and save that money for other stuff.

You're talking about a generation that grew up with a 60's indoctrination that the military is evil...it always does bad things to innocent people...and does nothing more than line to pockets of those exploiting the evil and scary "military industrial complex".


We are viewed by the left as the poster child for everything wrong...jingoistic and imperialistic about the United States.

And we now have a President who believes the same thing.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: miskie on June 21, 2012, 05:27:32 AM
The only submarine Nads knows anything about is this one.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sU7XPiqn5dI/Sm8zRhYg0yI/AAAAAAAABaM/F91-YEJAS2Q/s400/seaview.jpg)



Really ? I would have guessed this one..

(http://i610.photobucket.com/albums/tt189/powersitepro10/400x300_meatball.jpg)
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: NHSparky on June 21, 2012, 06:55:12 AM
At least they're going to be coed now.

Don't even get me started.  FWIW, only four boats (2 SSGN, 2 SSBN) are being crewed right now.  3 of the officers are already under investigation for falsifying travel claims. 

Nice start.

And no, I don't think it's going to work, and it'll NEVER happen on fast boats.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: BlueStateSaint on June 21, 2012, 06:58:16 AM
Don't even get me started.  FWIW, only four boats (2 SSGN, 2 SSBN) are being crewed right now.  3 of the officers are already under investigation for falsifying travel claims.  

Nice start.

And no, I don't think it's going to work, and it'll NEVER happen on fast boats.

3 of the officers--all female?  Damn, that's quite the auspicious start.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: NHSparky on June 21, 2012, 07:01:41 AM
3 of the officers--all female?  Damn, that's quite the auspicious start.

They were the three LT Supply Officers (CHOPs, as they're called on the boat.)  You'd think a ****ing SUPPLY OFFICER would know better than to cook the books, or to at least to do it so it wouldn't get caught.

They were supposed to "mentor" the younger female officers--the nuclear trained ones.  Typically, the only non-nuke officer on board is the CHOP.
Title: Re: DUmmies gripe about submarines--NADS input included
Post by: JohnnyReb on June 21, 2012, 06:19:04 PM
WW2 statistics...numbers galore...airplanes, ships, submarines, men, casualities.


http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html