Liberal Forum

Squatchman » Today, 8:42 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:42 am

   You're the one taking the topic into the weeds.
I have to ask. 
What is your problem?
Huey is actually not the guy you want to paint him out to be. He actually gives thought to his replies instead of just jumping on posts like some maniac.
  It's the whole AR 15 "assault rifle"thing isn't it? 
 Which we're going to address once and for all later. I don't have time at the moment.
  Now,if you can,stick to the topic of this thread or shut your yap. I'm getting tired of your feud with Huey taking every thread into the weeds.
  Try to show some **** restraint for once.

Please don't presume to tell me about huey....

As a matter of courtesy...

I have more than 20,000 notifications from Huey on this forum alone...


I have very good reason to know Huey...


In fact, it was Hiey who told me he doesn't get into the weeds...
 

Blackvegetable » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

Please don't presume to tell me about huey....

As a matter of courtesy...

I have more than 20,000 notifications from Huey on this forum alone...


I have very good reason to know Huey...


In fact, it was Hiey who told me he doesn't get into the weeds...
 

 

You have that many because I have more than that from you.  But Huey......

I'm done with that on this thread?
 

Huey » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

14 minutes ago

You have that many because I have more than that from you.  But Huey......

I'm done with that on this thread?

That's a lie...

Huey » Today, 9:29 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:29 am

That's the problem with new military technology.  I will stick with Army Helicopters to explain.  In the 60s the Army was various versions of the UH-1 in Vietnam.  Any where for 3500 to 5000 were reported as lost.  Not all were shot down or downed from enemy fire. It was a new design.  In the 80s the Army start to move to the UH-60 Blackhawk.  That thing was new and was nicknamed the crashawk and the lawn dart.  The latter because it was a the Army's first fly by wire system and if it flew at a certain elevation at a certain speed above high voltage wires it would **** with the elevators and cause the acft to nose over. Some say it was a myth but I recall being in a unit that had both Hueys and 60s.  The 60s were restriced to a certain airspeed and elevation for a short time.

Point being ow technology is not perfect.

Yet, the STEAM CATAPULT had been used for DECADES and the failure rate is far below the electtro-magnetic crap and it's been around for a few decades as well. The bottom line is, USE SOMETHING THAT WORKS on an aircraft carrier, not the crap that doesn't and has such a poor reliability factor it's not funny. I can tell you that FAMILY onboard one with the new crap will tell you, it works ABOUT 1/2 the time and is being worked on the OTHER half. In the heat of battle, you need to be able to launch aircraft at a rate these new systems can't keep up with if they are broken down and under repair.

AMD the part you seem to forget- there is NO FIXING THIS EM SYSTEM since it has WAY too many parts susceptible to failure. The Steam catapults don't and any thing needing fixed can be done without OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS. Seeing how Steam has only a handful of moving parts, fixing it is simple in most cases and can be done in FAR less time that the EM systems require.

It was wrought with FAILURE from the start and ALMOST got scrapped totally in the beginning!!! It's still not much better, especially when it dumps a billion-dollar plane overboard because it failed to hit proper speed!! Steam RARELY IF EVER did that.

Beekeeper » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

14 minutes ago

Yet, the STEAM CATAPULT had been used for DECADES and the failure rate is far below the electtro-magnetic crap and it's been around for a few decades as well. The bottom line is, USE SOMETHING THAT WORKS on an aircraft carrier, not the crap that doesn't and has such a poor reliability factor it's not funny. I can tell you that FAMILY onboard one with the new crap will tell you, it works ABOUT 1/2 the time and is being worked on the OTHER half. In the heat of battle, you need to be able to launch aircraft at a rate these new systems can't keep up with if they are broken down and under repair.

AMD the part you seem to forget- there is NO FIXING THIS EM SYSTEM since it has WAY too many parts susceptible to failure. The Steam catapults don't and any thing needing fixed can be done without OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS. Seeing how Steam has only a handful of moving parts, fixing it is simple in most cases and can be done in FAR less time that the EM systems require.

It was wrought with FAILURE from the start and ALMOST got scrapped totally in the beginning!!! It's still not much better, especially when it dumps a billion-dollar plane overboard because it failed to hit proper speed!! Steam RARELY IF EVER did that.

 

Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, called the decision to revert to steam catapults “illogical, inefficient and a waste of money,” and he said EMALS “reduce wear and tear on aircraft by providing smoother acceleration.”

 “They weigh a lot less, they use significantly less energy and water — which are in short supply on ships — require significantly less maintenance, and manpower,” Montgomery, a former commander of Carrier Strike Group 5 aboard the USS George Washington in Japan, told The Hill on Thursday. 

 Bryan Clark, a senior fellow and director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute, said the memo is a “mixed bag,” noting that putting steam catapults and hydraulic arresting gear and elevators back onto carriers will make them “less capable and more expensive.” 

 “The Navy is saving about $100M a year on the Ford because it requires fewer people and less maintenance. Redesigning the carriers to replumb them for steam piping to the catapults will take multiple years and cost billions of dollars,” Clark, a sea warfare expert, said in an email to The Hill on Friday morning. Steam catapults are no longer in production, and the Navy bought the last set 20 years ago, he said, adding that the service branch will need to “spend tens of millions and take years to stand up this production capacity again.”

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/6029 ... -reversal/

Also, the take off is smoother and their is less wear and tear on the aircraft.

 

Huey » Today, 10:51 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:51 am

Also, the take off is smoother and their is less wear and tear on the aircraft.

IF they are DOWN 40-50% of the time, they aren't launching ANY aircraft!!! So all that "smoother" **** is a moot point.

Funny how NO ONE wants to talk about that FACT!!

 

Beekeeper » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

IF they are DOWN 40-50% of the time, they aren't launching ANY aircraft!!! So all that "smoother" **** is a moot point.

Funny how NO ONE wants to talk about that FACT!!

 

 

Clam down.  We can disagree and have a conversation.  They navy hasn't bought one in 20 years and they are no longer in production.  

ConservativeWave » Today, 10:03 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:03 am

Electromagnetic catapult systems have had issues for YEARS... MAYBE they have worked the bugs out... BUT, if Trump is concerned, he PROBABLY has reasons that WE don't know anything about !!

Trumps rate of being CORRECT about such issues has been close to 100%... AND, I'll be DAMNED if I'd believe IDIOT Democrats, over Donald Trump, about such issues !!  If HE'S saying GO BACK to the older tech?  I would BET they are having MORE PROBLEMS with than than WE KNOW...  with the Electromagnetic catapult systems !!

    I figured you and queenbee would object.
  Trump is your God and is the most knowledgeable person to ever live.
  I'll address you instead if him,he collects dicks and bags them up. **** weirdo.
  
It isn't democrats that are saying the old steam catapults are better. It's naval experts and engineers that are saying this. You actually think trump knows more about these systems than they do? The same guy that wondered how to get disinfectant into people in order to kill the coronavirus? ****'A.
 Problems with the new system? If they were that **** then how did we obliterate Iran's military with air strikes?  Why send an aircraft carrier out at all if they don't work well? He wants the current system taken out and reverted back to the old steam power launchers because he talked to a sailor once in 2017  that praised the steam ****. A sailor,not a naval engineer. That means more money,time out for a refit and more people to operate it on the flight deck. More people means more opportunity for **** ups. 
  They also take up more space. Space that can be used to improve other fighting capabilities.
You can believe trump all you want to. I'll believe the actual experts that have forgotten more about this than he'll ever know. 
 

Beekeeper » Today, 9:19 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:19 am

Want to try again in telling everyone HOW **** STUPID YOU ARE??

Go back to sucking that BAG OF DICKS I gave you yesterday!! 

  I'm stupid?
It sounds to me that you collect dicks and store them in bags. 
  **** weirdo.
 

ROG62 » Today, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:12 am

  he doesn’t **** around…calls a spade a spade where needed…

Sometimes he calls a spade a white man .....
he says he's not color blind, so that could account for it.
 

Squatchman » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

  I'm stupid?
It sounds to me that you collect dicks and store them in bags. 
  **** weirdo.

Nah. 

They come to you via DIRECT MAIL from the TRANNY SURGERY CENTERS!!

And you go YUM when they arrive!!

Beekeeper » Today, 9:19 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:19 am

Sounds like a GREAT PLAN considering the FAILURE RATES of the "new" systems!!

Electromagnetic catapults, known as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), have faced notable technical, reliability, and political hurdles. Chief among these are high early failure rates, falling well short of target cycles between operational failures, heavy reliance on specialized technical support, and recent high-level directives to halt their use on future ships. 

Core Reliability and Technical Problems

• Low Mean Cycles Between Failure (MCBF): EMALS was originally designed to achieve thousands of launches between critical failures. Early testing and deployment data showed it breaking down far more frequently—often after only 400 to 600 cycles—adversely impacting flight operations and sortie rates.

• Complex Power Integration: The system requires massive bursts of electrical energy from onboard turbine generators and kinetic energy storage flywheels. Managing these massive power spikes has led to localized electrical faults and multi-day system downtime during early operations.

• Reliance on Outside Support: Unlike legacy steam systems that shipboard crews could completely service independently, EMALS heavily depends on specialized, off-ship contractor and technical support to troubleshoot complex software and hardware glitches during deployments. 

Want to try again in telling everyone HOW **** STUPID YOU ARE??

Go back to sucking that BAG OF DICKS I gave you yesterday!! Or did you finish it up already??

Once down, it renders the ship useless…another gubment “great idea”?
 

Huey » Today, 9:29 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:29 am

That's the problem with new military technology.  I will stick with Army Helicopters to explain.  In the 60s the Army was various versions of the UH-1 in Vietnam.  Any where for 3500 to 5000 were reported as lost.  Not all were shot down or downed from enemy fire. It was a new design.  In the 80s the Army start to move to the UH-60 Blackhawk.  That thing was new and was nicknamed the crashawk and the lawn dart.  The latter because it was a the Army's first fly by wire system and if it flew at a certain elevation at a certain speed above high voltage wires it would **** with the elevators and cause the acft to nose over. Some say it was a myth but I recall being in a unit that had both Hueys and 60s.  The 60s were restriced to a certain airspeed and elevation for a short time.

Point being ow technology is not perfect.

It always looks good on paper and limited test / brass approvals…but once they go live, it’s a whole ‘nother ballgame…
 

Squatchman » Today, 6:21 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:21 am

  Trump ordered that the Navy go back to using the old steam powered catapult technology on aircraft carriers instead of the more efficient newer electromagnetic system that's being used today. 
    It will only cost taxpayers billions to go back to using steam powered catapults but trump is the expert.
  Dementia is a hard mistress as trump has demonstrated once again.
   What's next? Trebuchets for knocking down walls? Maybe a moat around the Whitehouse?

Smelly Snatch didn't take his TDS meds today.....again!

ROG62 » Today, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 4:37 pm

Once down, it renders the ship useless…another gubment “great idea”?

Their TDS prevents them from seeing the REALITY of what a aircraft carrier is when the CATAPULT breaks.

It's more of an ANCHOR waiting to be dropped.

They really are THAT **** stupid and illogical in thinking. It's ALL about "get Trump" and "Trump is a moron", when in reality, he's more PRACTICAL then they ever could be and pretty much ALWAYS right in the end.

Beekeeper » Today, 1:05 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 1:05 pm

They come to you via DIRECT MAIL from the TRANNY SURGERY CENTERS!!


 

  I wondered where you got them. I thought maybe you cut them off of the little boys you victimize.
 

Squatchman » Yesterday, 10:14 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:14 pm

  I wondered where you got them. I thought maybe you cut them off of the little boys you victimize.

YOU subscribed, *******!!

You remind me of that Credit Karma commercial where the MORON is too **** STUPID to know how many subscriptions they have for some stupid **** they got.

Keep chasing me!! It's fun watching your *** get blistered.

Beekeeper » Yesterday, 5:52 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 5:52 am

It's fun watching your ***

   I figured you were a closet case. Most trump supporters are.
Thanks for the confirmation in a public forum. 
 
   Take a picture. It'll last longer than your memory.

Squatchman » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

   I figured you were a closet case. Most trump supporters are.
Thanks for the confirmation in a public forum. 
 
   Take a picture. It'll last longer than your memory.

Well, no. WOMEN are the ONLY thing desirable in my world, cupcake!!

Besides, YOU can't even define what a WOMAN IS, so a BAG OF DICKS is about all you are worthy of sucking on!!

And you do it with such gusto!!           

Beekeeper » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

Well, no. WOMEN are the ONLY thing desirable in my world, cupcake!!

 

  That's what all the closet bois say.



     Still want to chase me? I can do this all day.