Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Navy would have sea-going tender vessels in the area to deal with long-term issues.
As problems go, it can be solved, but... We shouldn't have to. Other navies put a frigate or frigate-style ship out there, use helicopters for speed, and stay on station for weeks.
Quote:
Cost is a factor, but remember that in the US military-industrial complex,
Sorta my point. We're being bilked, which is bad. We're giving the sailors substandard tools, which is (much) worse.
Quote:
Getting an entire combat ship for just a little more looks like a Navy bargain.
Well, the problem is with the entire "combat" thing.
Their stand-out feature is that of being really, really fast, but so are fast patrol boats at one fifth the price. And those tend to carry ship-killing missiles. The LCS carries - ehm - 57mm guns and self-defense missiles with a range of less than 6 nm? (Bolt-on solutions are being considered, but for heaven's sake...)
As delivered, they have no teeth. They can run, but in an age of missiles, running buys you very little. They have shown capacity for mine clearing and ASW detection - and those are areas where their capacity for speed is wasted. Granted, they're superb for inserting special operations teams.
The USN and the taxpayers are just notgetting their money's worth, here.
Yes of course, I forgot that Andrew Jackson was in favor of Texas being admitted as a slave state but refused to push the issue in Congress because of the political fallout that would negatively impact him, all the while the former "Americans" now Anglo-Mexicans were getting starved out of existence by the Mexican outlaw of slavery and imposition of heavy duties on American imports. Of course after the Texans won their own independence, Andrew Jackson took the bold step of diplomatically recognizing the sovereignty of Texas ON HIS LAST DAY IN OFFICE. Yup, that Andrew Jackson really stuck his neck out for Texas!
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrat
9 paragraphs about presidential history, But by the Navy's own admission the ship was named after Jackson,MS not President Jackson.
Some people have got way to much free time on there hands.
bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by APBT_Samara
People really have too much time on their hands. What a waste of energy to be offended by everything.
Gotta love the people who come in very late to a DISCUSSION board complaining about others having too much time on their hands. If you don't have the free time then don't make comments without having read anyone's previous posts. If you had bothered to read any of the previous posts (or an article as to why Native Americans or African Americans may be opposed to Andrew Jackson's namesake on a ship) you would recognize that:
a) Yes, we already know littoral combat ships are named after cities
b) Naming a LCS after Jackson, Mississippi is a poor choice because the city is named after Andrew Jackson
c) There are plenty of other regionally important cities named after individuals who were positive contributors to America and weren't complete slime like Andrew Jackson (Knoxville, Montgomery, Shreveport, Huntsville, Galveston, Gainesville, etc.) that littoral combat ships could be named after
d) If certain parties in the U.S. want minorities to forget the sordid details of America's past, then those in the present need to stop reminding minorities of it by honoring the unsavory figures producing the bulk of the sordidness
Andrew Jackson lived and died while slavery was legal in the USA and much of Latin America as well. Woodrow Wilson was born on December 28, 1856 in Virginia and was 8 years old when the civil war ended. Even if they were flaming liberals by the standards of the time, they would be considered racist by today's standards.
You can't change history, and these men still deserve some respect for some of there accomplishments.
Andrew Jackson lived and died while slavery was legal in the USA and much of Latin America as well. Woodrow Wilson was born on December 28, 1856 in Virginia and was 8 years old when the civil war ended. Even if they were flaming liberals by the standards of the time, they would be considered racist by today's standards.
You can't change history, and these men still deserve some respect for some of there accomplishments.
Please feel free to read any of the previous posts on any of the 9 previous pages where examples were given of the American heroes and important figures who were abolitionists, did NOT own slaves, and were anti-Indian removal. Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson were racists and everyone of their respective time knew it. But just like today, the racists of the day happened to agree with their policies. And are you sure about Latin America? Most places in Central America and notably Mexico had abolished slavery before Jackson even left office and the last vestiges were gone in Spanish South America within 10 years of Jackson's death. Only Cuba and Brazil completely abolished slavery in the Western Hemisphere later than the United States.
Yes of course, I forgot that Andrew Jackson was in favor of Texas being admitted as a slave state but refused to push the issue in Congress because of the political fallout that would negatively impact him, all the while the former "Americans" now Anglo-Mexicans were getting starved out of existence by the Mexican outlaw of slavery and imposition of heavy duties on American imports. Of course after the Texans won their own independence, Andrew Jackson took the bold step of diplomatically recognizing the sovereignty of Texas ON HIS LAST DAY IN OFFICE. Yup, that Andrew Jackson really stuck his neck out for Texas!
Gotta love the people who come in very late to a DISCUSSION board complaining about others having too much time on their hands. If you don't have the free time then don't make comments without having read anyone's previous posts. If you had bothered to read any of the previous posts (or an article as to why Native Americans or African Americans may be opposed to Andrew Jackson's namesake on a ship) you would recognize that:
a) Yes, we already know littoral combat ships are named after cities
b) Naming a LCS after Jackson, Mississippi is a poor choice because the city is named after Andrew Jackson
c) There are plenty of other regionally important cities named after individuals who were positive contributors to America and weren't complete slime like Andrew Jackson (Knoxville, Montgomery, Shreveport, Huntsville, Galveston, Gainesville, etc.) that littoral combat ships could be named after
d) If certain parties in the U.S. want minorities to forget the sordid details of America's past, then those in the present need to stop reminding minorities of it by honoring the unsavory figures producing the bulk of the sordidness
Seeing that I was the 4th one to post on this thread, and you came in on page nine, I would say that makes you the winner of the hippocrit of the year award.
I was hoping they would name her USS Tawana Brawley.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
