Prev: Re: Aircraft Vs Dreadnoughts (Which is what the topic mutated into :o) Next: Muahaha. . . but actually OT [DS/SG]

RE: [semi-OT] Aircraft Vs Dreadnoughts

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: RE: [semi-OT] Aircraft Vs Dreadnoughts


--- "Robertson, Brendan"
<Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> Interesting, I wonder if the USN is trying to get
> the funding for this.
> As a layman, I would guess they could easily reduce
> crew requirements by
> half as well as designing the defences for the
> greatest protection in modern
> air combat.	

Pet Peeve Alert:  No, the USN is not delusional enough
to think they could shove multi-billion-dollar
"battleships" through Congress.  Maybe if there was
another true large blue-water Navy that could actually
go a couple rounds in the ring with the USN (Love you
Brits, the RN is real good.  But it's really, really
small.	Ditto the French.)  But right now the USN is
going to be lucky to keep all their current
procurement programs (the SSN that's supposed to be
follow-on to Seawolf, CVNX, continued DDG-51
procurement, and the various aircraft acquisition
programs) without muddying the waters.

John M. Atkinson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 


Prev: Re: Aircraft Vs Dreadnoughts (Which is what the topic mutated into :o) Next: Muahaha. . . but actually OT [DS/SG]