Hardware overhaul

>>33111388
No more shitty, overly expensive ospreys

Well, the US should totally abandon all transport helicopters/planes
They are a huge pointless cost. Rapid transport of light forces is irrelevant in a real war.

Build hundreds of fast nuclear powered cargo ships instead.

File: 517631.jpg (219KB, 2100x1260px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 2100x1260px

>>33113986
*blip* Nothing personal, kid.

File: 1442514265562.gif (776KB, 514x667px) Image search: [Google]

776KB, 514x667px

>>33114014
too late, "kid"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6clJrM4W4k

File: image.jpg (88KB, 404x402px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 404x402px

>>33113986
>Rapid transport of light forces is irrelevant in a real war.

>>33113986
What the fuck did I just read? Are you completely retarded or just Chinese?

>>33114144
>someone was an asshole enough to just stand there and take a picture
HAH! I love it!

>>33114297
to be honest, the fatty deserved it. he should at least try to lose some weight

>>33114014
torpedo's can't catch cargo ships travelling at 50 knots

exoskeletons make no sense for soldiers. there are so few situations that they would be useful in combat. so far they only make sense in an industrial setting.

File: Shkval.jpg (57KB, 470x274px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 470x274px

>>33114375
*cavitates behind you* Nothing personal, kiddo

>>33114375
Merchant mariner here, you're a fucking idiot. Good luck getting anything with a draft of more than a few feet to go 50kn. Most currently merchant vessels have a sea speed (top speed) of about 16-20kn. And 20kn is a pretty fuckin fast cargo ship

>>33114402
Those are for stationary targets

>>33114429
Obviously the ship has to be designed to travel at high speeds, and after that its just a question of power, which nuclear can easily supply.

Cargo ships travel slow because their goods are not time sensitive and they need to minimize fuel costs

>The Algol-class vehicle cargo ships, also known as Fast Sealift Ships (FSS) or SL-7s, are currently the fastest cargo ships in the world, capable of speeds in excess of 33 knots (61 km/h).

>>33114575
Confirmed for not knowing what the fuck you're talking about
>Cargo ships travel slow because their goods are not time sensitive
Yes, they are. Masters are encouraged to get their cargo where it needs to go at the absolute fastest way possible. The more trips they get in in a year, the better for the company and they get a big fat check thanking them for all the extra cargo they shipped. Not to mention every minute you're out at sea is a minute something could go wrong. You know what happens if the refrigeration system on a reefer fails and you're in the middle of the Pacific? The company loses hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cargo.

Furthermore, any craft traveling at 50kn is going to be a planing vessel. Period. Your maximum speed in a full displacement hull is determined by the length of the ship, NOT the horsepower of your engines. Unless you can get that fat bitch up on TOP of the water, you will NEVER travel faster than your hull speed. Period.

Stop talking out of your ass about things you know nothing about.

>>33114297
It's too excellent of a photo op to pass up. And it's in the pop isle to boot.

>>33114708
>Though the term "hull speed" seems to suggest that it is some sort of "speed limit" for a boat, in fact drag for a displacement hull increases smoothly and at an increasing rate with speed as hull speed is approached and exceeded, often with no noticeable inflection at hull speed.

Doesn't sound like a top speed to me

The soviets built subs that could do 45 knots, it's all a question of how much power you are going to use to push the vessel.

after reading 2 comments on this thread I have come to conclusion we need giant nuclear powered hydrofoil craft.

Why does he need to motorcycle helmet?

>>33117219
For when it fucks up and he falls over in something weighing as much as a motorcycle. It's a test prototype, don't want your test engineer getting beaned.

I'd love to see them change the way we procure gear for the military. As it stands, it looks to be very inefficient and wasteful.

I'd also like to see the military get back to producing their own gear. Obviously, the military knows what it wants so why don't they make it themselves? At a minimum, their stuff could be included in the trials. It'd help manufacturers see something a little closer the the military's ideal specs.

>>33114391
Oh really? You can't fathom why a soldier would want more armor, mobility, and carrying capacity with less stress on their joints? I'm sorry you and the rest of this board take pride your myopic ideas on possible powered infantry.