If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   While the Chinese are fiddling with an outdated Russian aircraft carrier, the U.S. has something else in mind: A stealthy warship able to sneak up on coastlines virtually undetected and pound targets with electromagnetic "railguns"   (foxnews.com) divider line 146
    More: Cool, Chinese, U.S., Russians, china, surface ships, National Defense University, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, sea lanes  
•       •       •

15621 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jun 2012 at 8:35 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



146 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-04 09:23:57 AM  

unclemongo: We have always been at war with Oceania ...


Yea, let's fark up the Australians.
 
2012-06-04 09:24:36 AM  

BigBooper: If we want to maintain superiority in anything, it should be space based weapons. The ability to rain death from space on our enemies with no defense and no warning would be a fantastic deterrent to any country that might fark with us. We wouldn't need a large standing army, we wouldn't need a large navy or air force. Just enough orbiting weapons platforms to destroy any country on the planet in an instant.

We would rule this planet like GODS!


Like a harsh mistress.
 
2012-06-04 09:25:31 AM  
Say, why don't we let Taiwan worry about the defense of Taiwan, and save a few hundred billion?
 
2012-06-04 09:25:51 AM  
I think as anti-ship missles get more and more advanced, the role of large, easily targetable ships will get smaller and smaller. It's just impossible to defend against an enemy who would send hundreds of thousands of missiles your direction.
 
2012-06-04 09:31:35 AM  

indylaw: dittybopper: indylaw: I'm glad we're focusing on better ways to defeat non-existent enemies at sea while the illiterate, impoverished hordes fester at home.

Schools? Roads? Lady, what kind of business do you think the feds are in?

The US has a lack of schools and roads? News to me, considering that I drove to work at my employer, a school.

FUN FACT: Once you build a road or a bridge, you never have to expand or maintain it.


The roads I traveled on were well maintained. All 50 miles of them. What was your point again?
 
2012-06-04 09:33:26 AM  

wantingout: dittybopper: wantingout: sad that all the US has to show for itself is new ways to kill people.

Take away all the innovation from the US in the field of medicine. You'd still be using leeches to treat everything.

you mean selling people untested, yet fda- approved drugs, with multiple side effects up to and including death, just so the shareholders can get richer? yes that really is innovative.

the US USed to have innovation, but it has been all sold off to the highest bidder. we can pine about the past all we want i guess tho.


I doubt this will impress you, but one good example of an advance in medicine pioneered by the US is the introduction of locked plate fixation for fractures. It's certainly not a panacea, but it has improved fracture treatment and bony reconstruction.

Another is the use of negative pressure wound treatment (Wound VAC).

And don't discount the value of older, off-patent medications. Patients sometimes don't like being prescribed "old-fashioned" medications, but they're often just as effective as the fancy, shiny, new medications with an unknown side effect profile.
 
2012-06-04 09:33:48 AM  

Smoking GNU: nd the projectiles travel at something like 0.25 light speed


Yikes! Better tell them to slow it down. At 0.25c, the projectile interacting with the air at that speed would near instantaneously turn into a huge ball of radioactive plasma before leaving the gun barrel, vaporizing entire destroyer with it. And if the resulting atmospheric shock wave doesn't completely sterilize a 50 mile radius around the former ship, and hard radiation would.
 
2012-06-04 09:37:42 AM  

dittybopper: indylaw: dittybopper: indylaw: I'm glad we're focusing on better ways to defeat non-existent enemies at sea while the illiterate, impoverished hordes fester at home.

Schools? Roads? Lady, what kind of business do you think the feds are in?

The US has a lack of schools and roads? News to me, considering that I drove to work at my employer, a school.

FUN FACT: Once you build a road or a bridge, you never have to expand or maintain it.

The roads I traveled on were well maintained. All 50 miles of them. What was your point again?

 
2012-06-04 09:39:36 AM  

dittybopper: indylaw: dittybopper: indylaw: I'm glad we're focusing on better ways to defeat non-existent enemies at sea while the illiterate, impoverished hordes fester at home.

Schools? Roads? Lady, what kind of business do you think the feds are in?

The US has a lack of schools and roads? News to me, considering that I drove to work at my employer, a school.

FUN FACT: Once you build a road or a bridge, you never have to expand or maintain it.

The roads I traveled on were well maintained. All 50 miles of them. What was your point again?


i278.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-04 09:40:18 AM  
Because rail gun projectiles don't leave any radar signature that allows you to track them to their point of origin?

/If I can think of this, so can anyone who might be the recipient of rail gun projectiles.
 
2012-06-04 09:40:43 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: No, the battleships were retired because the expertise to operate them does not exist anymore. Very few ships in this day and age use that type of oil fired propulsion system, and there aren't any factories that produce the ammunition for rifles of that caliber. (Up until they retired the ships, they were working off of a supply of shells produced during WWII.)


Yeah, but they had tens of thousands of those shells. But that might have been a moot point if they ever decided to scrap them and make rocket assisted shells for the 16" guns.

And, of course, man power and operating costs of the Iowa class were also an issue.
 
2012-06-04 09:42:01 AM  
Do they know about the orbital kinetic javelin system we set up?
 
2012-06-04 09:43:02 AM  
And this is why we can't have nice things.

Politicians and Lobbyists and Generals, OH MY!

Maybe this is why the Bankers put all the money away.
 
2012-06-04 09:44:17 AM  
colinspooky:
thing is, all that fiddling means they are cloning theirs and soon there will be 136 of them on each of the coastlines they don't like much

As far as I know, the Chinese have yet to even launch ONE useful aircraft carrier, let alone dozens.

Anyway, these fancy boats are just more multi-billion dollar pork projects for the sacred American defense industry. Never mind that their supposed mission probably doesn't exist, and won't exist during their useful lifetime. Never mind that you could set up an entire asteroid mining program or whatever for the same cost. Never mind that children in New Orleans are being "educated" in windowless church basements. Gotta spend a few billion dollars, plus a few billion in overrun, on stealth railgun ships. Sheesh.
 
2012-06-04 09:45:41 AM  
In the late 1950's the US Navy re-built/converted three WW2 cruisers into guided missile cruisers, the USS Columbus, Albany, and Chicago. After the navy got them re-commissioned and out on the seas, they staged a demo for then-President Kennedy, a former navy man. After they got done with their dog and pony show, the admirals strutted about looking very pleased with themselves until the president, noticing that there were no guns aboard the ships now, asked the admirals how the ship was going to defend itself against pt-style boats attacking it when all the ship had was surface to air missiles. There were some might red-faces that day as no one had any answers for him. They took the ships back in to the shipyards and installed two WW2 surplus 5" guns, one on each side to pacify him but they were really very useless against high speed patrol boats. They were merely a cosmetic change. When we went into harm's way, we just prayed no one would use the patrol boats against us and kept our life jackets handy.

The DDG-1000 seems to have the same problem being without the Phalanx system and the Chinese admiral is correct. The navy has learned nothing over the years, it seems.
 
2012-06-04 09:46:05 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Say, why don't we let Taiwan worry about the defense of Taiwan, and save a few hundred billion?


As much as I'd like to see the savings associated with that, it won't happen.

Taiwan is a check on China's power (Think of how Cuba was a check on Spain's power before the Spanish-American war). If they ever chose to mess with them in any way, they know the US will respond in kind. And since its in island, the Chinese Navy will have to be able to beat the US Navy, which it can't now.

This is all Cold War 2 chest thumping except China doesn't have the know-how or the money* to play the Soviet part. This won't end anytime soon though, China wants to be seen as a big world player, but they're small and have a chip on their shoulder about it. The US thinks and acts like they're the very best and an upstart annoyance like China will only encourge more military dick-waving.

I just hope the animosity/fear dies down. Chinese people are nice and good people (mostly) and there shouldn't be a feeling of impending CHINA IS GOING TO INVADE AND MAKE US ALL SPEAK CHINESE or CHINA OWNS ALL OF OUR DEBT AND OWNS US (which is false as China only owns 8% of US Debt). This goes for both sides of the Pacific.

CSB: Before I left for China I was wearing a camo military-looking shirt and at my local meat market (Small town Southern GA). When I told the lady behind the counter I was about to depart for China she quietly asked me if I was a "spook" or if I was "Setting the groundwork for the invasion." I smiled, said "Its classified" and left. She looked like she was going to make a b line for her bunker.

*- Yes I realize that China has a MASSIVE budget surplus. Add up how far behind they are on research + materials + battlefield knowledge and put a dollar amount to that, they can't compete.
 
2012-06-04 09:46:56 AM  
/NorthrupGrumman designs a stealth ship that can escape with all the money. Three billion? Sweet lord.
 
2012-06-04 09:47:16 AM  
indylaw:

[i278.photobucket.com image 640x425]


You know what made that bridge collapse?

Socialism.
 
2012-06-04 09:47:30 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Because rail gun projectiles don't leave any radar signature that allows you to track them to their point of origin?

/If I can think of this, so can anyone who might be the recipient of rail gun projectiles.


Yes they do.

First, rail gun projectiles are just as visible as any other projectiles, and secondly, they will leave an 'ionization tube' similar to a meteorite that will also show up quite nicely on radar.
 
2012-06-04 09:51:14 AM  
One word: DF-21D.
/Also BrahMos.
///Also AS-16 Kickback.

Can't kill the weapons? Kill the ship.
 
2012-06-04 09:53:38 AM  
I'd be surprised that they aren't using this as a means to justify developing a proper logistical base to rival the US.

Projection of power doesn't rely on an Aircraft Carrier alone.
 
2012-06-04 09:55:54 AM  
HotIgneous Intruder:
/NorthrupGrumman designs a stealth ship that can escape with all the money. Three billion? Sweet lord.

That's about the size of it. Wasn't the projected cost of a manned mission to Mars about a couple billion? Sending people all the way to freaking MARS. Another planet. And back again. Of course... Northrop Grumman would probably get a lot of that money too, but I bet it'd feel a lot better.
 
2012-06-04 09:59:11 AM  

foo monkey: Stealth boat? Fleet movement can be tracked by satellite. Every boat surrounding the one stealth boat would have to be stealthy. Good luck obscuring the wake of that many war ships. That's tracked too.


About those satellites... just saying...
 
2012-06-04 10:03:01 AM  

Petit_Merdeux: Smoking GNU: And the projectiles travel at something like 0.25 light speed.

I think you need to re-check your calculations.


They travel at the speed of plaid.
 
2012-06-04 10:04:52 AM  

Animatronik: So let me get this straight: we retired all of battleships because cannon are antiquated in the era of guided munitions, but now we want to build ships with electric cannon because theyre cool??

This doesnt sound too smart.


Battleship cannon had a range of about 20 miles. You can't get that close to your target and survive these days. The railgun cannon here have a range of a few hundred miles.
 
2012-06-04 10:11:39 AM  

wantingout: sad that all the US has to show for itself is new ways to kill people.


You're able to post such a witty comment from your mother's basement because, at some point, the government invested in military technology to defend fat slobs like yourself. The very technology you are using to post was developed initially by military/NASA projects.
 
2012-06-04 10:12:44 AM  
The US could easily afford this if we cut funding to NPR and lowered taxes for billionaires.
 
2012-06-04 10:15:23 AM  
Speaking of Navy ships with awesome guns, this just showed up a mile from my house.
 
2012-06-04 10:15:28 AM  

indylaw: dittybopper: indylaw: dittybopper: indylaw: I'm glad we're focusing on better ways to defeat non-existent enemies at sea while the illiterate, impoverished hordes fester at home.

Schools? Roads? Lady, what kind of business do you think the feds are in?

The US has a lack of schools and roads? News to me, considering that I drove to work at my employer, a school.

FUN FACT: Once you build a road or a bridge, you never have to expand or maintain it.

The roads I traveled on were well maintained. All 50 miles of them. What was your point again?

[i278.photobucket.com image 640x425]


Link
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-04 10:16:44 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Animatronik: So let me get this straight: we retired all of battleships because cannon are antiquated in the era of guided munitions, but now we want to build ships with electric cannon because theyre cool??

This doesnt sound too smart.

No, the battleships were retired because the expertise to operate them does not exist anymore. Very few ships in this day and age use that type of oil fired propulsion system, and there aren't any factories that produce the ammunition for rifles of that caliber. (Up until they retired the ships, they were working off of a supply of shells produced during WWII.)

Battleships were a tremendous asset in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War not as capital ships, but as shore bombardment platforms. 80% of the territory in the world worth fighting over is within 30 miles of a coastline. A $1000 shell is a lot cheaper than a $1,000,000 cruise missile when trying to hold back an invasion or soften a dug in enemy.


They were retired because they were not cost effective. They were brought out of retirement in Korea and Vietnam for fire support, but mothballed again after. You could operate several destroyers for what it costs to run a battleship. Not only does it use more fuel, it has very little automation so it needs a very large crew.
 
2012-06-04 10:20:44 AM  

vpb: They were retired because they were not cost effective. They were brought out of retirement in Korea and Vietnam for fire support, but mothballed again after. You could operate several destroyers for what it costs to run a battleship. Not only does it use more fuel, it has very little automation so it needs a very large crew.


That and the updating of the 5" guns and their ammunition brought the range of a destroyers guns to the 20-27 mile range. Rocket assisted shells were a nifty invention.
 
2012-06-04 10:21:47 AM  
I cannot believe that the DoD is wasting $3B a pop on a freaking destroyer. They can accomplish the same thing with an airplane.
 
2012-06-04 10:24:00 AM  

dittybopper: Petit_Merdeux: Those will come in handy when we attack Alqaedastan.

Because we will never, ever have to attack another navy. We're just that strong that the World has permanently conceded the oceans to permanent US hegemony.

/That was sarcasm, btw.
//Don't make the classic mistake of preparing to fight the same enemy as the last war you fought.


You know, like preparing for another cold war, or world war type scenario. Preparing for an Air Superiority battle where we'll need human pilots to be more maneuverable than a missile. Preparing for see warfare with a class of ship that has only ever existed in America.

Like that.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-04 10:24:24 AM  
Here is one reason that extreme stealth isn't worth the cost.

Here is another.

The problem is that a single technological development can make your investment in stealth obsolete.
 
Ehh
2012-06-04 10:25:34 AM  
JackieRabbit: I cannot believe that the DoD is wasting $3B a pop on a freaking destroyer. They can accomplish the same thing with an airplane.

I can imagine it, and I can imagine a Fox news article gushing over the stupid waste of money.
 
2012-06-04 10:25:57 AM  

dittybopper: HotIgneous Intruder: Because rail gun projectiles don't leave any radar signature that allows you to track them to their point of origin?

/If I can think of this, so can anyone who might be the recipient of rail gun projectiles.

Yes they do.

First, rail gun projectiles are just as visible as any other projectiles, and secondly, they will leave an 'ionization tube' similar to a meteorite that will also show up quite nicely on radar.


What evidence do you have that the ionization trail from using a conventional railgun wouldn't dissipate after more than 50ft of travel from the muzzle?
 
2012-06-04 10:26:13 AM  

Parthenogenetic: GoTarHeels: I like being protected by our Navy but it should be noted that our aircraft carriers are far more often used for humanitarian purposes than for war.

By the way ...

For all the warships in the US Navy, only two currently active in today's fleet have sunk enemy vessels.

TWO. Out of 430.

And, one of the two is the USS Constitution.

/ yes, THAT USS Constitution

What's the other one?

My first, cynical thought was the USS Vincennes, but it didn't *sink* an *enemy* *vessel* (*shot* down a *civilian* *airliner*), and I see that it's been decommissioned.


USS Simpson (FFG-56). In 1988 it sank the Iranian warship Joshan after being fired upon. Why was it being fired on? Well, let's not let history get in the road of a chance to bash our armed forces as a waste of resources...
 
2012-06-04 10:28:05 AM  

JackieRabbit: I cannot believe that the DoD is wasting $3B a pop on a freaking destroyer. They can accomplish the same thing with an airplane.


But then that's money going to the got damn Air Force, not the Navy. What the hell, man? Have you no decency?

On second thought... you might be right, rabbit. This means the Navy needs another carrier group or three, to support ship-based airplanes.

BRILLIANT!
 
2012-06-04 10:29:23 AM  

indylaw: I'm glad we're focusing on better ways to defeat non-existent enemies at sea while the illiterate, impoverished hordes fester at home.

Schools? Roads? Lady, what kind of business do you think the feds are in?


Yeah, money is really the problem with poor schools...

You mean all the bridges and roads aren't fixed yet? I thought they were those shovel ready projects getting all the press a couple years ago. Maybe that ran out of money painting up signs to tout the project...

Ship mounted railguns sound cool and all, but couldn't they just mount them on existing platforms like the littoral combat ships? They're built for coastal operations and are supposed to be multi-mission capable... Why does the US government seem to love reinventing the wheel, especially when their last whiz-bang weapons platform is sold to congress on being able to do everything under the sun?
 
2012-06-04 10:31:43 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Parthenogenetic: GoTarHeels: For all the warships in the US Navy, only two currently active in today's fleet have sunk enemy vessels.

TWO. Out of 430.

And, one of the two is the USS Constitution.

/ yes, THAT USS Constitution

What's the other one?

My first, cynical thought was the USS Vincennes, but it didn't *sink* an *enemy* *vessel* (*shot* down a *civilian* *airliner*), and I see that it's been decommissioned.

USS Simpson (FFG-56). In 1988 it sank the Iranian warship Joshan after being fired upon. Why was it being fired on? Well, let's not let history get in the road of a chance to bash our armed forces as a waste of resources...


Ha! Operation Earnest Will! So I was close... Sort of... OK, not really.
 
2012-06-04 10:34:43 AM  

BeesNuts: Preparing for see warfare with a class of ship that has only ever existed in America..


We've declared war on the Vatican?

/Gentlemen, we can not allow a mineshaft papal gap!
 
2012-06-04 10:36:35 AM  

wantingout: sad that all the US has to show for itself is new ways to kill people.


It is indeed sad that is the only thing you can see. Such are the ways of the simpleton.
 
2012-06-04 10:48:32 AM  
The Southern Logic Company Smartest
Funniest
2012-06-04 09:46:05 AM


ThrobblefootSpectre: Say, why don't we let Taiwan worry about the defense of Taiwan, and save a few hundred billion?

As much as I'd like to see the savings associated with that, it won't happen.

Taiwan is a check on China's power (Think of how Cuba was a check on Spain's power before the Spanish-American war). If they ever chose to mess with them in any way, they know the US will respond in kind. And since its in island, the Chinese Navy will have to be able to beat the US Navy, which it can't now.

This is all Cold War 2 chest thumping except China doesn't have the know-how or the money* to play the Soviet part. This won't end anytime soon though, China wants to be seen as a big world player, but they're small and have a chip on their shoulder about it. The US thinks and acts like they're the very best and an upstart annoyance like China will only encourge more military dick-waving.

I just hope the animosity/fear dies down. Chinese people are nice and good people (mostly) and there shouldn't be a feeling of impending CHINA IS GOING TO INVADE AND MAKE US ALL SPEAK CHINESE or CHINA OWNS ALL OF OUR DEBT AND OWNS US (which is false as China only owns 8% of US Debt). This goes for both sides of the Pacific.

CSB: Before I left for China I was wearing a camo military-looking shirt and at my local meat market (Small town Southern GA). When I told the lady behind the counter I was about to depart for China she quietly asked me if I was a "spook" or if I was "Setting the groundwork for the invasion." I smiled, said "Its classified" and left. She looked like she was going to make a b line for her bunker.

*- Yes I realize that China has a MASSIVE budget surplus. Add up how far behind they are on research + materials + battlefield knowledge and put a dollar amount to that, they can't compete.


This. They're still pretty much a brown water navy expanding to a regional power (very limited blue water navy). The idea that we're going to see Chinese warships sailing anywhere near the US or any other meaningful projection of miltiary power is laughable. Their military spent all of the 90's and into the 00's being told by the government that they are a second priority and the military needs to play businessman to meet its costs. A partial reason for all the Chinese military owned companies, including things as innocuous as hotels and karaoke lounges. The increases in military spending came recently.

Why? They want these toys to make their regional Asian neighbors kowtow to their demands (India, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, various other competitors in SE Asia, etc). And it seems more bark than real bite.... a stealth fighter of dubious quality and capabities and a carrier based on old soviet designs. Useful for threats if Japan sends a coast guard vessel and sinks some Chinese fishing boats, or say, the Vietnamese send their old Soviet era destroyers and the Filipinos use their surplus ex-US frigates to collectively lay claim to the Sprats. Those guys should be concerned.

And frankly, the Chinese tend to be a pragmatic bunch of folks. They'd rather make money than fight. And in terms of bullying their neighbors, they'd rather use economic power (withold investments and aid money and/or bribe key politicians). For Taiwan, its just a waiting game for them. Time is on their side.
 
2012-06-04 10:49:11 AM  

LemSkroob: /I just had a "Traditional Greek Salad" that did not contain lettuce


How did Chinese businesses all decide at once to just be Ferengi? How did that happen?
 
2012-06-04 10:50:40 AM  

dittybopper: indylaw: dittybopper: indylaw: I'm glad we're focusing on better ways to defeat non-existent enemies at sea while the illiterate, impoverished hordes fester at home.

Schools? Roads? Lady, what kind of business do you think the feds are in?

The US has a lack of schools and roads? News to me, considering that I drove to work at my employer, a school.

FUN FACT: Once you build a road or a bridge, you never have to expand or maintain it.

The roads I traveled on were well maintained. All 50 miles of them. What was your point again?


Interestingly, our coastline is still well protected. All 12,383 miles of it. What was *your* point again?
 
2012-06-04 10:52:08 AM  

The Southern Logic Company: *- Yes I realize that China has a MASSIVE budget surplus. Add up how far behind they are on research + materials + battlefield knowledge and put a dollar amount to that, they can't compete.


Which is why they have a small army of hackers dedicated to hacking into the computer systems of our government and the firms contracted by the government to do our research and development. It's a lot cheaper and faster than doing the research for yourself from scratch. They'll always be a step behind, but it's better than being a mile behind and wasting your resources on research that you can just steal from someone else.

Of course, if we maintain our determination to be bigger and badder than everyone else... well, maybe we're playing the part of the Soviets in Cold War II: electric lets-prioritize-military-spending-over-everything-else-including-basic -infrastructure-and-educationaloo.
 
2012-06-04 10:54:12 AM  

incendi: The Southern Logic Company: *- Yes I realize that China has a MASSIVE budget surplus. Add up how far behind they are on research + materials + battlefield knowledge and put a dollar amount to that, they can't compete.

Which is why they have a small army of hackers dedicated to hacking into the computer systems of our government and the firms contracted by the government to do our research and development. It's a lot cheaper and faster than doing the research for yourself from scratch. They'll always be a step behind, but it's better than being a mile behind and wasting your resources on research that you can just steal from someone else.

Of course, if we maintain our determination to be bigger and badder than everyone else... well, maybe we're playing the part of the Soviets in Cold War II: electric lets-prioritize-military-spending-over-everything-else-including-basic -infrastructure-and-educationaloo.


Fark that. We just train them up ourselves. They don't need to steal a damned thing when they can open up an outsource shop, sell their services to American Tech companies, get taught how to make things that are "only manufacturable in the US" and voila. We lose our advantage. Nothing shady at all. We literally PAY THEM to learn to outperform us.
 
2012-06-04 10:57:57 AM  
Or we could build half of another carrier. Big deck Navy for life!
 
2012-06-04 10:59:57 AM  

xtragrind: You're able to post such a witty comment from your mother's basement because, at some point, the government invested in military technology to defend fat slobs like yourself. The very technology you are using to post was developed initially by military/NASA projects.


I'm so happy to be safe from the imminent invasions from the Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans, Syrians, Somalis, Yemenis, and whoever else we've attacked in the last 50 or 60 years.

You know who really affect my freedom? The people that want to touch my balls at the airport. Let's use the military for something useful and invade them.

// I can't begin to imagine how much more awesome the internet would be today if Steve Jobs had invented it instead of starting as a government project.
 
2012-06-04 11:04:40 AM  

BeesNuts: Fark that. We just train them up ourselves. They don't need to steal a damned thing when they can open up an outsource shop, sell their services to American Tech companies, get taught how to make things that are "only manufacturable in the US" and voila. We lose our advantage. Nothing shady at all. We literally PAY THEM to learn to outperform us.


Well, we don't do that for our nifty military stuff, pretty much because a while back Toshiba decided to sell our quiet submarine propeller design and the associated manufacturing equipment to the highest bidder. So all of that sort of development, which is largely contracted out to Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics, etc, is under constant (and not entirely unsuccessful) attack.
 
Displayed 50 of 146 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report