Posted on 12/23/2010 10:43:05 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
First, there's:
This translates into how many American jobs???????????
When the article clearly states that "the ships will have to be built in the U.S." and that 50% of the jobs will be in the Austral yard in Alabama with the other 50% going to Lockheed Martin.
Then, there's:
Exactly my point [referring to the equally stupid question of your fellow non-reader: "So, they couldnt find an American company to do this?"] American ingenuity just got a slap in the face by the self-proclaimed jobs-creator.
For that to be your point, you would have had to stupidly assume that Austral would be building them in Australia.
In fact, as the article quite clearly stated, this has nothing to do with American ingenuity, it was Australian ingenuity.
It's their design and idea, and they're justifiably proud that we have adopted their design. Nobody got slapped by anyone, not even by the Narcissist-in-Chief. Americans get the jobs and a great ally participates in building something we need that they developed.
Then, upon finally realizing that the ships will be built in the U.S., there's the final idiocy:
By union labor.......
Which is, of course, entirely and predictably wrong. Austral, USA is not unionized.
Got any more gems to burp up?
Hey - ru still awake?
Have a beautiful Christmas this year!
Looks like close to 50% of the people on this thread didn’t read the article.
Anyone else feel we are not the same country we were a couple years ago?
—
Not in the same country I lived in 35 years ago... back when people, who had fled the Iron Curtain at the risk of their lives to live and work in a free country, began to feel they had never left...
Will be built in Mobile, Alabama and provide several thousand jobs for this area. Hopefully will also push up the salaries of all shipyard employees in this area is I’m lucky.
is=if
Go to Mobile, Alabama and count them
'
“Looks like close to 50% of the people on this thread didnt read the article.”
Never let the facts get in the way of a bad argument.
I understand it’s common, but the 50% number is unusually high. I’m getting ready to post a thread that will make the non-readers go ballistic, if they can bring themselves to click on it.
The decision was made a couple of years ago. This goes back to the Bush Administration. They gave the contract for the USS Independence to Austal in 2005.
Hey, please ping me on that !
Nicely done !
Wow, how many people replying had no clue this has been in the works for years? That we already have one of these roaming the seas (USS Freedom), with more on the way? This is a competing design to the Lockheed built USS Independence, the DoD is buying both designs. People need to stop setting their hair on fire over every perceived slight, in seemingly every thread.
I seem to remember a French Exocet missile used by the Argentinean navey during the Falkland war burnt a British aluminum interior/superstructure warship down to the gunwales...
. Video here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1maCM4K8EI&NR=1&feature=fvwp
This is a common myth - HMS Sheffield had a steel superstructure, not an aluminium one.
HMS Ardent and HMS Antelope did have aluminium superstructures but their sinkings had nothing to do with that.
Aluminium is certainly something to worry about in terms of fire - HMS Amazon suffered a significant fire that was exacerbated by the use of aluminium in 1977, and the USS Belknap was severely damaged in 1975 - but that can be handled if you plan for it, and sometimes the advantages of aluminium do justify the difficulties it can cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.