• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama to Kill Tomahawk, Hellfire Missile Programs

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
So we're actually still building more Tomahawks this year and next - at enough numbers to probably keep up with usage in the next couple years and more. So in 2016 we'll have anywhere from 3500 to 4000 missiles stockpiled, which are really only effective against a 3rd world military and no longer a major threat to a 1st world military.

I'd be frustrated (like I am again and again) by military waste if we planned to keep building more of these subsonic, non-stealth missiles.
 
We have plenty of these missiles, and if we need more, we'll make more.

And seriously, some of you guys sound like you actually want to get into a shooting war with Russia. Russia is no match for the United States militarily, and even if we did start butting heads, it would likely end in a nuclear scenario. So let's ease it up with the chest pounding, shall we? Cutting a little bit of military spending doesn't make us weak.
 
crownjules said:
So let's start be diverting that $128M from the military to NASA. So many technological advances were made via the space program that trickled down to civilian life. That's where we'll really benefit, by progressing. Not spending money on the same old shit.
Click to expand...

+1

nasa needs all the money it can find

and that will also upgrade our ability to fight in space
 
We really need to crack down on all that cyber warfare computer geek pansy shit and instead double down on conventional weapons suited for fighting nuclear powers unwilling to use nukes under any circumstances in a world war 3 situation.
 
eskimospy said:
But an aircraft carrier is about ten times more useful than a battleship and has probably twenty times the combat power.
Click to expand...

there are uses for both

a battleship is unrivaled for shore bombardment and can carry plenty of missiles along with some aircraft as long as they can vtol. also an aircraft carrier might not have enough room for large operations command and control station which a battleship might be able to accomadate. also a 21st century designed battleship would be very multi purpose. they could have the main cannons as well as anti ship missiles, cruise missiles, anti aircraft missiles, and torpedos. the battleship is also a lot more survivable against aircraft power then many think because actually the truth is that any one ship is vulnerable to aircraft power.
 
Texashiker said:
Linked article says replacement missile program is not ready.



No replacement and current stockpile will be depleted by 2018.
Click to expand...

so 2000 missiles ever used, up until this point, with 4000 more in stock?

And you think they will be depleted by 2018?

So, you, like your source, believe that the current rate during wartime is the realistic lifetime rate of Tomahawk use?

lulz.

You really should focus on training your puppies to play well with your chickens, rather than dabble with numbers that confuse you.
 
Texashiker said:
I quoted from the article.

If you have issues with the numbers in the article, please take those issues up with the author.
Click to expand...

We might if we could find a respectable, non-hack media source for this story. I stopped looking for one after several pages of google results showed nothing but right wing nutjob sites.
 
Pens1566 said:
We might if we could find a respectable, non-hack media source for this story. I stopped looking for one after several pages of google results showed nothing but right wing nutjob sites.
Click to expand...

Does not change the fact that funding is being pulled when a replacement is not ready.
 
IronWing said:
Only because Lucas is willing to spend more on special effects.
Click to expand...

How does a single Borg ship have the payload to destroy an entire planet?

And don't give me that "assimilation of Death Star computer system crap."
Those imperial access codes are all super secret. Only top Imperial Brass, many, many Bothan spies, and a dashing space smuggler and his pet bear have access to those!

:colbert:
 
eskimospy said:
The same people who constantly complain that we waste too much money feeding, housing, and caring for US citizens appear to desperately want us to instead spend that money on building missiles and putting them in a warehouse.
Click to expand...

agreed.

1979560_647790768591311_995884038_n.jpg
 
zinfamous said:
How does a single Borg ship have the payload to destroy an entire planet?

And don't give me that "assimilation of Death Star computer system crap."
Those imperial access codes are all super secret. Only top Imperial Brass, many, many Bothan spies, and a dashing space smuggler and his pet bear have access to those!

:colbert:
Click to expand...

Those Death Star computers have mechanical keyboards. The Emperor does things right. Better than the cheapskates over on the Enterprise. "We have a giant space battle planned!" "Costs too much, there's a perfectly good 1920s gangster set right over there, tweak the script."
 
zinfamous said:
How does a single Borg ship have the payload to destroy an entire planet? And don't give me that "assimilation of Death Star computer system crap." Those imperial access codes are all super secret. Only top Imperial Brass, many, many Bothan spies, and a dashing space smuggler and his pet dog have access to those!
Click to expand...

fixed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top