With Val Kilmer working on it, a laser is capable of anything...

The Iron Curtain technology is going to see slow acceptance. HMMWVs and MRAPS are already crammed with electronic countermeasures. In addition, I don't know how you think that can be applied to a helicopter. It isn't intercepting a projectile in three dimensional space, it's providing a 'steel curtain'. An explosion that close to the rear rotor of a helicopter can still potentially bring it down.

Look, you don't know anything about how a helicopter gets shot down. You don't know what direction they shoot them from, and you have no experience with this kind of technology. I do. I'm telling you, the ability to put active countermeasures on a helicopter is quite a ways off.

Choppers with freakin' lasers on their heads

Even if there was a suitable answer to the question posed in this thread it wouldn't matter because Bush isn't president anymore.

I'll take a stab at this, but remember I'm a Navy guy and not involved in Aviation. So this is really not my cup of tea.

As has been said, we don't really have the tech.

We have something for Naval vessels that's kind of similar to what you're asking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIWS

But keep in mind, an RPG is much smaller than a missile (obviously), so detection would likely be more difficult (read the article for the limitations on this system).
Also, this is obviously too big and heavy for a helicopter.

Lastly, regarding budget. We are stretched much thinner than you realize. It's already been said before, but I'll give you some more specific information. Right now our manning on our Naval ships is averaging around 60%. This means on a ship designed for a crew of say, 500, we're operating with 300 (not actual numbers. I have them, but don't want to post on a public forum). Not only that, but the Navy is being more and more strict about their recruiting requirements, and about their re-enlistment requirements, in order to further shrink our overall manpower. We simply do not have the budget to even pay our existing undermanned workforce.

In addition, a good portion of the equipment on our ships were designed as much as 50 years ago. For example, if you saw some of the computer equipment on board my ship, you would be shocked. The computer that runs our missile launcher system, is significantly less powerful than the pc or laptop you're using to read this post. I'll take that a step further. Flash back 15 years ago. Our launcher computer is less powerful than the computer you used to play BASIC games like Snake on. Obviously, there's better technology out there, and many of the newer ships are being fitted with it, and the older systems are being revamped slowly, but we literally do not have the budget to afford it. So trust me. Our budget is being stretched very thin. We're not just sitting on money.

OP the reason is that we elected a Negro Muslim President who Hates Freedom

yah, probably that.

(No, these things have been a problem for a lot longer than Obama's been in office.)

No, everything is his fault.

I'm on your side but this is just ridiculous. Your asking for it..

Yeah, but when he was president it was always his fault for not outfitting the troops with the equipment they needed. He's gone now so everything can't be continually blamed on him. Oh, wait a sec...

Maybe its Hillary's fault, she was the one running the country when her husband was in office.

I just... you don't think much do you

You wouldn't have the same perspective as I in this matter but I got so sick and tired of the political rhetoric the democrats used by criticizing Bush for sending the troops to war without the best equipment. It was so hypocritical and you are simply not going to see that criticism from democrats of the current president. Besides, my first post on the matter was in jest as I already made the point that the idea to begin with is implausible which practically everybody seems to agree with.

Uh... I don't know... Wookie, I thought Bush did a pretty good job of taking care of the enlisted guys... that's at least what I hear...

I don't hear too many complaints about Obama, either, honestly...

I think Wookie may have been around the block once or twice inside the service. At least compared to you being a poolee.

Umm. that's EXACTLY his point. Seriously, how long has Wookie been on these forums, and you guys still haven't gotten the hang of his sarcastic argument style? I'll break it down for you guys.

Wookie is saying that the democrats of Bush's time were hypocritical and taking cheap shots at Bush by putting out that Bush was sending troops into warzones without the latest and greatest equipment. This is true, but in reality, it would be impractical to expect otherwise, and with an accurate perspective of the difficulties involved in equipping an army, one would likely draw the conclusion that Bush did a fair job, contrary to all the democratic criticism.

Also, his original quip about Bush not being president was not made to suggest that Obama doesn't care at all about the military, but to point out that even if a mistake is being made, the media won't raise a cry of outrage because they don't enjoy pointing fingers at Obama nearly as much as they did at Bush.

Sarn gets it.



Dude, you're not even in the military. Yet. Most of your posts on the subject make it appear that the only people you even talk to about the military are recruiters. First off, because it is unseemly, you aren't going to hear a massive amount of military personnel complain about any commander-in-chief in public. Second, because the military is the most diverse organization in the country, if not the world, you are going to have a wide diversity of opinion. I won't draw conclusions from my experience because that would be criticized for being anecdotal but I will offer my opinion based on some of his (Obama's) actions/inactions/attitudes. There was the coldness in his response the Ft Hood shooting, first acknowledging it as an afterthought at some Native American seminar and refusal of his and his administration to condemn it as terrorism. Then there was his agonizingly slow (and tepid) conclusion to how to proceed with Afghanistan. Then there was his proposed 1.4% pay raise for next year which wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't his party all up in arms the year we were going to get the, required by the law congress sent to the president, 3% pay raise and it was Bush that didn't want to pay the troops what "we deserve". Obama proposes the smallest pay raise in about 40 years and you don't hear a peep. Then there's the prosecution of Navy SEALs which is at least as bad as Bush prosecuting those US Border Patrol agents. At least that was a big defeat for his administration because they've all been acquitted thus far.

There are several other things, big and small, that lead me to dislike the commander-in-chief's policy and I would guess that my opinion is not in the minority in the military.

Yes, lets put big heavy explosive blocks all over our delicate aircraft! This can't possibly go wrong!



Yeah, the Enterprise still had those ****ing big tape things as I recall.

Well perhaps you have a legitimate point, but you should really expand upon it rather than just trolling. It doesn't really make you look good.

It's like if I said, "Mother Theresa was a gigantic whore!" without furthing expounding upon why.

It's also a social problem, and an engineering problem. Modern navies are resistant to modern technology for a lot of the same reasons NASA is: the conditions are extremely harsh on electronics, it's hard to test their reliability under actual conditions, and IIABDFI. A lot of the equipment you're using was probably designed and manufactured 10 years ago... to follow a 50 year old spec.

That's why ACS was a BFD, but until recently you still never saw the awesome stuff on bridges. That's why Northrom Grumman's Nimitz automation contract is an even bigger BFD.

The lesson here is that you can't talk to those military guys about anything.

What are you talking about? Sarn understood the post, there's no trolling. It was a JOKE but like most jokes its meaning and humor get completely diminished when it has to be specifically explained. Actually, I think everyone has gone through this. Tell joke. Get dumbfounded response. Explain why the joke is funny. Get confused response as to how and why that is funny. Give up and say "nevermind".

Also, I don't get the Mother Theresa comment. Could you further expound upon that?

Oh, and I should add, that the basis for me even making the joke was that Kop was complaining about how we aren't spending the money on the technology to defeat RPG threats out of our massive budget. In other words, sending our troops off to combat without the equipment they deserve.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PTgJIjK67rEC&dq=the+missionary+position&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=b6MTTPTREcG88gbqgrGzCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q&f=false

I have to think by your response that you got that joke as well. I fully expected Emon not to.

Wookie. I don't care who criticized our last president but anyone that argued that we were will ill-fitted to fight a sustained counter-insurgency operation I praise. Obama cut the F22 program in half in order to redirect the money to ground troops. F22's STILL to this day have not run one sortie in Iraq or Afghanistan. That to me has earned him some credibility of out-fitting our current forces as opposed to 'future' ones.

Bull. Obama would have cut the program anyway. You're simply buying the rhetoric. High cost programs like that are always the cause of increased scrutiny and routinely cut by administrations of both parties. The point also isn't whether or not we were ill-fitted to a fight a sustained counter-insurgency. Of course our military was out fitted more appropriately for conventional warfare. But you don't fail to fight because you don't have "the best equipment". If that were the case, we'd never send the Marines anywhere. The specific criticism of Bush by democrats was purely politically motivated. Just like their support of the war varied with regards to their perception of the political opinion most advantageous to them at any given time.

Which I view as a failure of policy in many respects. Conventional warfare is the exception, a rare occurrence. A force that is well trained and equipped for small wars can more easily be adapted to fight a conventional war than the other way around.



Yep. Isn't this true. It's also resulted in some of the most entertaining events in my life. Riding dirty, using a Lance Corporal hanging out the window with a surefire in place of headlights.

See, you know I'm right when I make that sort of statement and the Marine agrees with me.

Wookie, I have no place arguing with a 21 year Staff Sgt. I owe you respect, regardless of whether I agree with you or not.

I'm just sorry that you're retiring before I get my commission.