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.

(Breitbart.com)   The Navy is getting new hovercraft, which will be able to transport several tanks of eels   (breitbart.com) divider line 99
    More: Spiffy, hovercrafts, transportation, navy  
•       •       •

9850 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2012 at 4:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-08 04:12:19 PM
As long as it can come back to my place. Bouncy bouncy!
 
2012-07-08 04:13:00 PM
torontorealtyblog.com
 
2012-07-08 04:13:09 PM
My nipples explode with delight.
 
2012-07-08 04:20:09 PM
I'm a fan of hovercraft.
 
2012-07-08 04:22:15 PM
Haha. I forgot that guy was still allowed to have a website.
 
2012-07-08 04:22:25 PM
FTFA "Amid the bad news that many of our navy vessels are being switched over to biodiesel, at a cost of about 7 times current costs-the per gallon price for the fuel they've used for ages is about $3.60 a gallon while the bio-price is approximately $26 a gallon"

Where is the Navy buying biodiesel for $26 per gallon? I suppose it's possible that you could make biodiesel that expensive if you made it from extra virgin olive oil or something, but many of the people who are going to biodiesel (or biodiesel blends) are doing so because it's cheaper than petroleum based diesel fuel. One of the biggest advantages of biodiesel is that it can be made from waste oil, and with many bases, mess halls, ship galleys, etc, the Navy should have plenty of waste oil that they can turn into fuel for virtually nothing.
 
2012-07-08 04:24:17 PM
Erwin Rommel tried using tanks full of eels in North Africa, and got his ass kicked.
 
2012-07-08 04:24:58 PM
 
2012-07-08 04:25:08 PM
here's the real good news that breitbart doesn't tell you: With the cancellation of the Marines' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a kind of water-skiing tank meant to replace current amphibious troop carriers, that was a congresspersons wet dream. money poured into it while the operational date kept getting pushed farther and farther away.

of course there is always some bad news with these things and for this one: If the Textron prototype proves successful, the Navy will exercise an option for eight operational SSCs at about $44 million apiece, which would bring the contract's value to $570 million -- so they get $212.7 million to build a prototype from the nay's design and if it works $44 mill each for the boats.

i feel safer already.
 
2012-07-08 04:26:00 PM
content7.flixster.com

\with delight
 
2012-07-08 04:27:29 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Where is the Navy buying biodiesel for $26 per gallon?


it's breitbart. one doesn't look for accuracy there.
 
2012-07-08 04:30:28 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Where is the Navy buying biodiesel for $26 per gallon? I suppose it's possible that you could make biodiesel that expensive if you made it from extra virgin olive oil or something, but many of the people who are going to biodiesel (or biodiesel blends) are doing so because it's cheaper than petroleum based diesel fuel. One of the biggest advantages of biodiesel is that it can be made from waste oil, and with many bases, mess halls, ship galleys, etc, the Navy should have plenty of waste oil that they can turn into fuel for virtually nothing.


80,000 barrels per day ain't going to be cheap no matter what you use. This less biased source says that the $26 fuel was bought for a single exercise (and mixed with petroleum for a slightly cheaper cost in the tank). I imagine that if it were large-scale, the cost would be significantly cheaper.

// besides, when has the U.S. military ever pioneered a new technology without the "private sector in the lead"?
// aside from the internet, GPS, etc...
 
2012-07-08 04:31:22 PM
It's like looking at novocaine for the soul.
 
2012-07-08 04:31:31 PM
Can any of you military types explain to me how a Hovercraft is a better delivery platform than an aircraft or landing boat? It seems like it'd be a lot more vulnurable to enemy coastal defenses.
 
2012-07-08 04:32:34 PM

Curious: TuteTibiImperes: Where is the Navy buying biodiesel for $26 per gallon?

it's breitbart. one doesn't look for accuracy there.


Yeah, time to hate on Breitbart. It's not like there's a google out there for you to check before posting.

https://www.google.com/search?q=navy+biodiesel+cost+per+gallon

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/06/usa-navy-greenfleet-idUKL2E8 I 57HE20120706

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/26-a-Gallon-of-Biof u el-Is-the-Navy-Paying-too-Much-to-be-Green.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/army/216261-mccain-warns-navy-bi o fuels-plan-could-become-another-solyndra
 
2012-07-08 04:33:00 PM

Cerveaux: Haha. I forgot that guy was still allowed to have a website.


well technically it not his website anymore. and the right needs a chance to be heard what with the LSM and all the liberal web stifling their very being.
 
2012-07-08 04:35:45 PM
Oh! This sounds pretty co-

*pause*

A Brietbart link? Never mind.
 
2012-07-08 04:36:37 PM
The Navy is trying to do for biofuels what the Post Office did for aviation. I think that's good.

So yes, expect biofuels to cost more until demand, supply, technology ramp up enough to bring costs down.

But it is a reasonable question to ask, how much more should the Navy be willing to pay?
 
2012-07-08 04:36:45 PM

TuteTibiImperes: FTFA "Amid the bad news that many of our navy vessels are being switched over to biodiesel, at a cost of about 7 times current costs-the per gallon price for the fuel they've used for ages is about $3.60 a gallon while the bio-price is approximately $26 a gallon"

Where is the Navy buying biodiesel for $26 per gallon? I suppose it's possible that you could make biodiesel that expensive if you made it from extra virgin olive oil or something, but many of the people who are going to biodiesel (or biodiesel blends) are doing so because it's cheaper than petroleum based diesel fuel. One of the biggest advantages of biodiesel is that it can be made from waste oil, and with many bases, mess halls, ship galleys, etc, the Navy should have plenty of waste oil that they can turn into fuel for virtually nothing.


You need the purest form of oil to make Naval gas.
 
2012-07-08 04:38:36 PM

BronyMedic: Can any of you military types explain to me how a Hovercraft is a better delivery platform than an aircraft or landing boat? It seems like it'd be a lot more vulnurable to enemy coastal defenses.


Conventional landing craft goes about 12 mph, tops. Hovercraft goes 55 mph (the new ones will be slower, but with longer legs and bigger payload). Conventional landing craft can put stuff ashore only on sloping sandy beaches (15 percent of world's coastline). Hovercraft can fly ashore just about anywhere (85 percent of world's coastline). So hovercraft is harder to hit, and more importantly can attack where there are no coastal defenses.

Helicopters can't transport an M-1 Abrams tank or several trucks; hovercraft can. They put some of the Marines in helos (and now the V-22 Osprey) and attack inland the way they used to use paratroopers, the stuff and the rest of the Marines in LCACs.
 
2012-07-08 04:39:17 PM

RoyBatty: Yeah, time to hate on Breitbart


"waaaaahhhhhhhh, the site linked to has never once proven accurate so now people just assume it's always inaccurate waaaaaaahhhhh!"

Failmitter should have linked to a legitimate source if this is a legitimate story.
 
2012-07-08 04:39:35 PM

BronyMedic: Can any of you military types explain to me how a Hovercraft is a better delivery platform than an aircraft or landing boat? It seems like it'd be a lot more vulnurable to enemy coastal defenses.


It's faster (less time exposed to enemy fire) and can go places regular boats can't (like over shallow reefs and up onto beaches). Plus, half of the enemy soldiers will stand up and say . "Dude! That is soooo cool", so we can shoot them easier.
 
2012-07-08 04:40:12 PM

Gyrfalcon: TuteTibiImperes: FTFA "Amid the bad news that many of our navy vessels are being switched over to biodiesel, at a cost of about 7 times current costs-the per gallon price for the fuel they've used for ages is about $3.60 a gallon while the bio-price is approximately $26 a gallon"

Where is the Navy buying biodiesel for $26 per gallon? I suppose it's possible that you could make biodiesel that expensive if you made it from extra virgin olive oil or something, but many of the people who are going to biodiesel (or biodiesel blends) are doing so because it's cheaper than petroleum based diesel fuel. One of the biggest advantages of biodiesel is that it can be made from waste oil, and with many bases, mess halls, ship galleys, etc, the Navy should have plenty of waste oil that they can turn into fuel for virtually nothing.

You need the purest form of oil to make Naval gas.


The Navy/Air Force/Army is reluctant to put just anything into their turbines without extensive testing to make sure that F-18 or C-17 isn't going to seize up at the end of the runway or fall out of the sky.
 
2012-07-08 04:40:53 PM
images.wikia.com

Holvercraft
 
2012-07-08 04:41:47 PM
I will not click this Breitbart link. It is scratched.
 
2012-07-08 04:41:58 PM
Here's a pic of one of the amazing new hovercraft in action, being driven by Seaman Charles Thompson.

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-07-08 04:42:45 PM

RoyBatty: The Navy is trying to do for biofuels what the Post Office did for aviation. I think that's good.

So yes, expect biofuels to cost more until demand, supply, technology ramp up enough to bring costs down.

But it is a reasonable question to ask, how much more should the Navy be willing to pay?


A quick glance at the crew of an aircraft carrier would seem to indicate a fondness for fried foods: Can they esterize the chipvats of the fleet to get cheap, delicious bio-diesel?

Yeah, it really does smell slightly yummy out the tailpipe.
 
2012-07-08 04:43:07 PM
It's funny, One cheap RPG would knock it right out of the water.
 
2012-07-08 04:43:14 PM

Splinshints: RoyBatty: Yeah, time to hate on Breitbart

"waaaaahhhhhhhh, the site linked to has never once proven accurate so now people just assume it's always inaccurate waaaaaaahhhhh!"

Failmitter should have linked to a legitimate source if this is a legitimate story.


So let me get this straight, the excuse you're providing for others' inaccurate comments, is that Breitbart is wrong so often, it justifies their rote, templated, hackneyed responses without any sort of fact checking of their response on their part needed. Okay so how are they better than Breitbart again? What makes their comments worth posting or us reading?
 
2012-07-08 04:43:53 PM

RoyBatty: Curious: TuteTibiImperes: Where is the Navy buying biodiesel for $26 per gallon?

it's breitbart. one doesn't look for accuracy there.

Yeah, time to hate on Breitbart. It's not like there's a google out there for you to check before posting.

https://www.google.com/search?q=navy+biodiesel+cost+per+gallon

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/06/usa-navy-greenfleet-idUKL2E8 I 57HE20120706

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/26-a-Gallon-of-Biof u el-Is-the-Navy-Paying-too-Much-to-be-Green.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/army/216261-mccain-warns-navy-bi o fuels-plan-could-become-another-solyndra


I didn't say that the Navy didn't spend that much on fuel, just that if they did they way overspent, as biodiesel can be produced for much, much, much less. The original article also insinuates that the Navy is planning on running most of its ships on straight biodiesel at $26 per gallon, when that clearly isn't the case.

Of course, the truth is the Navy has no plans to continue paying that much for the fuel, and that it was just an initial experiment to see if biofuels were a possible option. Early versions of technology are always more expensive, so I don't have an issue with the Navy helping to fund biodiesel research now if it means we can eventually grow our own diesel for a fraction of the cost of the petroleum based stuff.

In the meantime however it seems like it would make sense to recycle all of the used fry oil and other waste oils the military uses into fuel that could be at least blended with the current petroleum based stuff they use to help reduce costs.
 
2012-07-08 04:45:11 PM

Deacon Blue: BronyMedic: Can any of you military types explain to me how a Hovercraft is a better delivery platform than an aircraft or landing boat? It seems like it'd be a lot more vulnurable to enemy coastal defenses.

It's faster (less time exposed to enemy fire) and can go places regular boats can't (like over shallow reefs and up onto beaches). Plus, half of the enemy soldiers will stand up and say . "Dude! That is soooo cool", so we can shoot them easier.


If that was the case, we should have nothing but hovercrafts hitting the beaches. It would be a slaughter! Or running through the flats of Afghanistan, except there aren't any.
 
2012-07-08 04:45:31 PM
Deacon Blue: BronyMedic: Can any of you military types explain to me how a Hovercraft is a better delivery platform than an aircraft or landing boat? It seems like it'd be a lot more vulnurable to enemy coastal defenses.

It's faster (less time exposed to enemy fire) and can go places regular boats can't (like over shallow reefs and up onto beaches). Plus, half of the enemy soldiers will stand up and say . "Dude! That is soooo cool", so we can shoot them easier.


mbillips: BronyMedic: Can any of you military types explain to me how a Hovercraft is a better delivery platform than an aircraft or landing boat? It seems like it'd be a lot more vulnurable to enemy coastal defenses.

Conventional landing craft goes about 12 mph, tops. Hovercraft goes 55 mph (the new ones will be slower, but with longer legs and bigger payload). Conventional landing craft can put stuff ashore only on sloping sandy beaches (15 percent of world's coastline). Hovercraft can fly ashore just about anywhere (85 percent of world's coastline). So hovercraft is harder to hit, and more importantly can attack where there are no coastal defenses.

Helicopters can't transport an M-1 Abrams tank or several trucks; hovercraft can. They put some of the Marines in helos (and now the V-22 Osprey) and attack inland the way they used to use paratroopers, the stuff and the rest of the Marines in LCACs.


Thanks guys.
 
2012-07-08 04:46:13 PM

TuteTibiImperes: FTFA "Amid the bad news that many of our navy vessels are being switched over to biodiesel, at a cost of about 7 times current costs-the per gallon price for the fuel they've used for ages is about $3.60 a gallon while the bio-price is approximately $26 a gallon"

Where is the Navy buying biodiesel for $26 per gallon? I suppose it's possible that you could make biodiesel that expensive if you made it from extra virgin olive oil or something, but many of the people who are going to biodiesel (or biodiesel blends) are doing so because it's cheaper than petroleum based diesel fuel. One of the biggest advantages of biodiesel is that it can be made from waste oil, and with many bases, mess halls, ship galleys, etc, the Navy should have plenty of waste oil that they can turn into fuel for virtually nothing.


Dude, it's Breitbart. Have they ever published a story without some lie in it?.
 
2012-07-08 04:47:09 PM

Deep Contact: It's funny, One cheap RPG would knock it right out of the water.


One rpg shot wouldn't touch the current LCAC. The skirts are all independant so taking out one won't hurt the lift and it has multiple engines for inflating the skirts and forward drive. It would take a barrage of RPG's to take out. Hovercraft are tough machines. The only week point is the crew.
 
2012-07-08 04:51:03 PM

natmar_76: [torontorealtyblog.com image 600x317]


I got that for Christmas back in 1985 or so. I loved the launching watersled from underneath. Too bad my parents were so poor, I didn't even have a bathtub big enough to float it in, much less a pool.
 
2012-07-08 04:52:47 PM
FTFA: "The New Landing Craft will be able to transport 74 tons, which is "sufficient for moving several tanks...,""

From Wikipedia... "The M1 Abrams is a third-generation main battle tank produced in the United States. It is named after General Creighton Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and Commander of US military forces in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972......Weighing nearly 68 short tons (almost 62 metric tons), it is one of the heaviest main battle tanks in service.

So, uh, who's "several tanks" are we transporting with this thing?
 
2012-07-08 04:53:15 PM
As a Hungarian, I approve of this headline.
 
2012-07-08 04:53:32 PM

ox45tallboy: natmar_76: [torontorealtyblog.com image 600x317]

I got that for Christmas back in 1985 or so. I loved the launching watersled from underneath. Too bad my parents were so poor, I didn't even have a bathtub big enough to float it in, much less a pool.


I had that too. At the time it was Holy shiat awesome.
 
2012-07-08 04:53:50 PM

BronyMedic: Can any of you military types explain to me how a Hovercraft is a better delivery platform than an aircraft or landing boat? It seems like it'd be a lot more vulnurable to enemy coastal defenses.


img399.imageshack.us


Well, this level would have certainly been easier.
 
2012-07-08 04:54:19 PM
 
2012-07-08 04:56:54 PM
Moje vznášedlo je plné úhořů!

spressivo.com
 
2012-07-08 04:58:21 PM

apachevoyeur: Moje vznášedlo je plné úhořů!

[spressivo.com image 607x451]


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-08 04:59:47 PM
I can't remember the last time I saw a 'Bart link on the main page. Usually it's Politics or Entertainment.

Did not click. Will not give those asshats page hits.
 
2012-07-08 05:02:33 PM
pudding7: So, uh, who's "several tanks" are we transporting with this thing?

I'd assume that we would not only plan on carrying the M1 Abrhams, which is one of the heaviest MBTs in the world right now, but also NATO tanks like the Leopard/Leopard II (which Canada uses), the French Leclerc, or the Challenger II.
 
2012-07-08 05:08:26 PM
Jut because an engine can use bio-fuels doesn't mean it has to.
 
2012-07-08 05:10:29 PM
This eel is full of hovercraft. Your argument is invalid?

img827.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-08 05:10:32 PM
Spiffy? Yeah... not really excited.

We spend waaaaay too much money funding the development of, and the purchase of, all sorts of military hardware that either doesn't pan out, or that we buy and never use. $640 farking billion dollars this year alone -- AT LEAST -- for the military budget, tons of it on crap that isn't helping anyone except military contractors. And yet, people biatch and moan about spending money on health care or renewable energy projects. Sigh.
 
2012-07-08 05:12:50 PM

BronyMedic: pudding7: So, uh, who's "several tanks" are we transporting with this thing?

I'd assume that we would not only plan on carrying the M1 Abrhams, which is one of the heaviest MBTs in the world right now, but also NATO tanks like the Leopard/Leopard II (which Canada uses), the French Leclerc, or the Challenger II.


This thing was probably designed during the days of FCS when new tanks were going to weigh almost nothing because computers would be better armor than armor.
 
2012-07-08 05:16:18 PM

RoyBatty: BronyMedic: pudding7: So, uh, who's "several tanks" are we transporting with this thing?

I'd assume that we would not only plan on carrying the M1 Abrhams, which is one of the heaviest MBTs in the world right now, but also NATO tanks like the Leopard/Leopard II (which Canada uses), the French Leclerc, or the Challenger II.

This thing was probably designed during the days of FCS when new tanks were going to weigh almost nothing because computers would be better armor than armor.


Since we already have drones couldn't we have remote operated tanks? By removing the space needed for the crew and being able to reduce the amount of armor needed they could probably be made quite a bit lighter and cheaper.
 
2012-07-08 05:16:45 PM

pudding7: FTFA: "The New Landing Craft will be able to transport 74 tons, which is "sufficient for moving several tanks...,""

From Wikipedia... "The M1 Abrams is a third-generation main battle tank produced in the United States. It is named after General Creighton Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and Commander of US military forces in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972......Weighing nearly 68 short tons (almost 62 metric tons), it is one of the heaviest main battle tanks in service.

So, uh, who's "several tanks" are we transporting with this thing?


You could claim that LAVs (13 tons) and Bradleys (30 tons) are "tanks," if you were being journalistically fuzzy with the definition. They're armored fighting vehicles, anyway, which is more or less the definition of a tank. Of course, Marines don't use Bradleys, and the wheeled LAV isn't a track, so....OK, Breitbart contributors are idiots.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report