Home » Sea » Navy builds DDG 1000 with next-generation precision gun

Navy builds DDG 1000 with next-generation precision gun

by Kris Osborn on April 9, 2013

The U.S. Navy’s DDG 1000 next-generation land-attack destroyer is being engineered with a stealthy, precision strike Advanced Gun System (AGS) that can pinpoint land-targets with GPS precision at ranges up to 63-nautical miles, service and industry officials said at the Sea Air Space Expo at National Harbor, Md.

The AGS consists of a range of elements. It features a stealthily configured gun with an automated magazine. The 155mm munition called the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) has a propellant charge to send the round toward its targets, said Charlie McCullough, director of business development, Land and Armaments, BAE Systems.

In November 2012, BAE Systems received an $80 million modification contract award to add an AGS for the latest in the Zumwalt-class fleet, the DDG 1002.

The LRLAP has both GPS as well as Inertial Measurement Unit guidance systems and is configured to destroy land-based or “fixed” targets, McCullough said. The LRLAP’s strike range greatly exceeds the range of most Navy destroyers existing 5-inch guns, he added.

The LRLAP has performed well thus far in recent tests, McCullough added.

“We did seven tests in the last month. During the tests, you stress the system in flight regimes and in temperature regimes to make sure that it works and that it fits within all the desired parameters,” McCullough said.

Overall, the DDG 1000 is on track with its current development, said Capt. Jim Downey, program manager, DDG 1000. The Zumwalt-class of guided missile destroyers, the DDG 1000 is engineered with two Vertical Launch Systems for missiles and two AGS as well as X-band radar.

The Navy plans to build at least three DDG 1000s and the first two are already on contract, said Chris Johnson, NAVSEA public affairs.

“We’re expecting delivery of our first ship in 2014 and plan for Initial Operating Capability by 2016,” said Downey.

Share |

{ 91 comments… read them below or add one }

Davis April 9, 2013 at 3:22 pm

AGS on DDG-1000 and lasers on the USS Ponce?! I definitely not complaining but I'm suprised to see in this day in age of budget cuts the Navy seems to be doing really well!

Reply

Restore Palestine April 9, 2013 at 4:05 pm

You will be crying day and night once you learn that the AGS and laser gun are as effective in real combat as the BS posts on this board.

Reply

Davis April 9, 2013 at 11:06 pm

Restore Palestine, bro, take some time off from this website, work on your insults and then come back. Your attempts at insulting USS ENTERPRISE, STemplar and myself are so pathetic and childish its embarrassing. Now, I realize you Palestinians are not very smart or good at fighting (as we saw in 1948, 1967 and 1973) but still, if your going to talk trash at least be good at it so you don't embarrass yourself online.

Reply

jhm April 10, 2013 at 12:55 am

What else can they do? Chuck stones at Merkava MBTs? Losers will always moan and groan, why not let him have this one last capability since all their other capabilities have been rolled over or blown away by IAF aces.

Reply

Moo April 10, 2013 at 4:58 am

Jesus Christ Davis you Scum-bag, The Israelis got their ass kicked in 2006 by Hezbollah, there is a reason there is a blockade on Gaza…. the reason being if Hamas had access to materials and weaponry they would kick the Zionists out of Palestine just like they got kicked of Lebanon in 2006. I admire the People of Palestine for the tenacity and courage they show in the face of overwhelming force, sling shots against merkava tanks. They have bigger balls than you will ever have son.

Reply

moo sucks April 10, 2013 at 8:41 am

This seems logical and coherent. Thanks for posting your unique, well researched, and thorough insights.

Except not. Just from your language you seem like a vile racist that has no idea what the hell he's talking about.

STemplar April 10, 2013 at 3:39 pm

Not sure what your link between the 2006 war in Lebanon and Gaza is? The blockade was imposed after the Palestinian civil war.

Hamas would never be able to arm themselves to do much of anything to Israel. They have no GDP and Iran certainly doesn't possess the tactical arms to dent the IDF. Hiding in the mountains of southern Lebanon firing anti tank missiles is one thing, invading and pushing someone out of geography is something else.

The Palestinians are being used as pawns/fodder by the Iranians. Iran is being cornered by the international community and while they have money aplenty to sustain themselves they are going to have less and less as time goes by and sanctions continue. The Palestinians should be more concerned about water and sewage treatment than Zionists.

wpnexp April 10, 2013 at 8:51 pm

Sending women harrassed for having committed adultery to become suicide bombers sure does take a lot of balls. Attacking buses also takes a lot of courage. Yeah, those Palestinians are just chock full of courage.

wpnexp April 10, 2013 at 8:47 pm

Then you would have no problems testing them in say – the Gaza Strip?

Reply

greg April 11, 2013 at 8:03 am

LOL your a fool. You just come in here and troll. I don't know why I or anyone else responds to you.

I have treat you like my kids and ignore your tantrums.

Idiot go back to Palestine, they miss you and we hate you.

Reply

STemplar April 12, 2013 at 3:16 am

Arabian Gulf.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 11, 2013 at 2:10 am

Not interested in your asscrack, STumpler. Go seduce your Arabian master / owner.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 12, 2013 at 1:48 am

Still not interested in your asscrack.

If your Arabian owner isn't interested, I suggest you go seduce yourself in front of a mirror.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 13, 2013 at 11:12 am

Why are you telling us your daily schedule?

DavidLight April 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm

Your and Idiot plain and simple

Jong April 9, 2013 at 5:52 pm

What happen to the Electromagnetic Railgun?

Reply

Ben April 9, 2013 at 9:49 pm

It's coming along. Still not quite mature yet.

Reply

Bill April 10, 2013 at 10:55 pm

Sometimes a surplus of money can lead to lazy engineering and poor planning – "Oh well, we have the cash to fix this".

Engineering, by definition, is supposed to be fiscally practical, so I suppose we are kinda forcing ourselves haha.

Reply

Noha307 April 9, 2013 at 3:22 pm

The battleship is back b*tch!

Reply

Noha307 April 9, 2013 at 3:26 pm

…and for anyone about to go anal on me: Yes, I know it's not really a battleship.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 9, 2013 at 4:04 pm

So is your hallucination. Big deal.

Reply

blight_ April 9, 2013 at 4:22 pm

Considering that battleships could get torpedoed (see USS Pennsylvania) and live to tell the tale…well, I doubt that the Zumwalts could take a torpedo and not suffer terribly. However, the Penn may well have sunk if it was under way, and not at port.

Reply

IronV April 9, 2013 at 6:25 pm

NORTH CAROLINA took a Long Lance torpedo underway and actually sped up for a time. After some debate, naval engineers were satisfied her torpedo protection worked as designed… If PENN ahd been underway, she might have had better watertight integrity. That torpedo strike hit perfectly though… a big mess.

Reply

usmc-fo April 9, 2013 at 5:49 pm

Ah…not really.

Reply

brooklyn15 April 11, 2013 at 3:16 am

I'd love to see the battleships back in the fleet, never happen, they're all museums. I served 3 years aboard the USS WISCONSIN BB64. 55-58.

Reply

Mike June 27, 2013 at 12:18 am

US is only investing $80 million..That buys nothing

Reply

Mike June 27, 2013 at 12:22 am

All three of them..another hostage to obama economics

Reply

Aden June 1, 2014 at 2:19 am

They don’t use battleships any more

Reply

Tad April 9, 2013 at 4:01 pm

What's that smell? Hmm, oh yeah, it smells like exaggeration and prevarication stew, with a side of boondoggle.

Will be extremely surprised if this gun is accurate over those ranges under realistic conditions. Time will tell,…., if this thing is ever actually used in combat.

Reply

blight_ April 9, 2013 at 4:23 pm

"We used computer simulations to estimate accuracy at long ranges, based on rosy optimistic projections on d_CEP/d_distance. Our model assumes 1" CEP change per mile, and so when we tested it at one mile, we simply added 63 inches to get a 63" CEP at 63 miles."

/sarcasm

At the end of the day, the strength of the round is in GPS. Give a GPS-guided round fins and enough glide time to correct for drift, error and wind to arrive at the desired point, then it doesn't really matter /how/ you deliver it.

Reply

Mystick April 9, 2013 at 5:36 pm

I wish I knew this was going on… I would have went.

Reply

ohwilleke April 10, 2013 at 12:10 am

If it works, it works, which is great. But, how exactly is a weapons system that involves a munition with its own propellant and a GPS guidance system a gun rather than a missile?

Reply

Duane Schwartz April 11, 2013 at 12:31 pm

Our Marines and Army have been using the 155mm (6.1in) round for many decades. I think this is just a high tech artillary round. Rounds with propellant in them have also been around for a while as well as smart bombs. It was time someone put them all together.
WTC Ret.

Reply

DSGB April 10, 2013 at 6:32 am

You want long-range firepower There has been a system around Since the 1980s
It's call Multi launch rock system (MLRS). Put one of those on LCS,DD,CG or LPD Now that's long-range firepower. You heard it from me first.

Reply

Rob C April 10, 2013 at 7:00 am

Too bad the thing too big mount on a ship, specially as small as the LCS. They've tried to mount the MLRS on other ships to no availale.

Reply

wpnexp April 13, 2013 at 8:22 am

You only need the launch pack and electronics for an MLRS on a ship. Of course, reloading 6 packs would require an ammo handling system, but probalby not as hard as one might think, s the Navy has a long history developing automated reloading systems. Actually, I think MLRS, which is not really an insensitive munition exactly, is probably the drawback that prevents its use with the Navy. But, if used as part of an Arsenal ship, with small crew manning, and in a more expendable mode, could be interesting. Of course, we don't really think in terms of expendable very much anymore.

Reply

Dsgb April 10, 2013 at 10:45 pm

I'm a retired gunners mate I worked on the basic point defense (BPD) NATO Sparrow mk-29 And the vertical launch system MK -41. You don't need to truck you just need to launcher look at the old Spruance class destroyers with the old ASROC Launcher.
There is even a new smaller version of the MLRS. There isn't a gun the Navy is producing that has that kind of firepower or range

Reply

blight_ April 11, 2013 at 12:07 am

As an addendum,an ATACMs at 300 km range is nothing to sneeze at. It's no TLAM, but…

Reply

d. kellogg April 11, 2013 at 2:10 pm

The naval version of MLRS was called POLAR (Precision, Over-the-horizon, Land Attack Rocket) and was written off years ago.
With the advent of quad-packing Sea Sparrow/ESSM types into a Mk41 VLS cell, and the fact that G-MLRS can reach several dozen km with a 90kg warhead, suggest maybe it should be re-visited.
Add into the equation that it's been considered to arm the MLRS booster with a Small Diameter Bomb (and its impressive developmental multi-mode seeker/guidance), and long range bombardment capability can be added to dozens of ships, rather than just a handful of Zumwalts.

POLAR was originally conceived to hit 160km or so.
Money being no object, it's even feasible to mount one of those small-scale turbines (akin to the MALD's TJ150) into the 9inch diamater rocket body and give it some serious range.

Reply

Belesari April 10, 2013 at 6:48 am

AGS fires 7ft rounds. These rounds are in reality missiles. This is Not a gun. Whats more its incapable of firing anything but guided rounds meaning it can't fire on surface contacts.

There are other guns capable of doing this job and far better such as the MK-71 8in gun.

The flaws of the AGS are massive so of course the Navy will take it anyways.

And I would really like to know why so many post keep getting deleted.

Reply

Warfighter April 10, 2013 at 7:06 am

Why would it be unable to fire on a surface contact? A GPS coordinate can come from a variety of ISR sources, from EO systems board the ship, drones and spotter aircraft, etc.

I have no info about this particular project, but I assume they also have an unguided AGS round somewhere so the gun can be fired without the wasted cost of an unused GPS guidance system. Otherwise, BAE would be doing the equivalent of developing the M777 and only building it to fire Excalibur rounds.

Reply

Belesari April 10, 2013 at 4:17 pm

Good question. The Unguided round was a requirement of the first program. The AGS won partly because it said it could do that.

There is no unguided round. Its not a 155 mm arty round. It is a missile that is 7 ft long.

Your analogy is actually perfect thats just what they did.

Reply

STemplar April 10, 2013 at 4:50 pm

The AGS can fire standard ballistic rounds as well. The original deck gun with no turret was only going to fire unguided, that's why they put it in a turret, so it could fire standard ammo as well.

From the product info page at bae.

Magazine:
Capacity 600 rounds
Transfer Fully automated
Ammo handling Guided or ballistic
http://events.us.baesystems.com/SAS/prodserv/pdf/

Reply

STemplar April 10, 2013 at 5:21 pm

Sorry, meant to say deck gun was only firing guided, ie rocket rounds.

Reply

blight_ April 10, 2013 at 6:28 pm

Interesting.

The LRLAP comes in two variants: The long variant for the AGS, and the 5"/54 compatible version with less range.

I suppose LRLAP will be mass produced for the rest of the Navy to use, plus export to bring the price of the electronics down. But the AGS' LRLAP will be the ace in the hole should the Navy end up fighting enemies armed with export-grade LRLAP rounds.

Reply

blight_ April 10, 2013 at 6:35 pm

Just to make sure, you're suggesting that this gun can fire Navy standard 5" rounds? Or American/Western European 155mm artillery rounds?

Reply

STemplar April 11, 2013 at 1:26 am

Some literature has cited standard 155mm. The info page simply says guided and standard ballistic ammo. The turret was done though specifically for the use of unguided rounds and flatter trajectories which l presume would be for surface targets at sea.

Reply

William_C1 April 11, 2013 at 2:17 am

I think the unguided ballistic rounds have been postponed but I can't say for sure. I think they should get some DPICM for these guns too.

narrowgauge April 10, 2013 at 8:29 pm

I work for the yard building the DDG-1000. AGS can fire anything that is 155mm. It also has a rocket aided round for targets further than 100 mi away, sub-munition rounds, and standard 6in rounds.

Reply

Rob C. April 10, 2013 at 7:03 am

I was disappointed they could make the AVG to work vertically like they wanted too in the first place. Would have kept the ship stealthier…anyways. I'm glad new guns are working, i just wish they had able make them be able his moving targets. (6.1 inch)155mm gun does alot damage, but its not bunker buster like the 16inch guns were. Zulwalt is still a destroyer regardless of its size, has no armor to speak of. Guy in a bomblatent dingy could blow hole in it. If they were able put into production it would give feel you could deploy them without being paranoid losing unique asset.

Reply

Tony C. April 10, 2013 at 7:17 am

The DDG-1000 at a glance has many of the features of the old USS Monitor. It looks like most of it is under water and it doesn't have much armament. The bridge is composite with kevlar armor, with most of the protection specifics is classified. The survivability of the class is definitely placed on the stealth design. The idea being if it can't be targeted, it can't be hit. Problem with this approach is that it can still be seen by the optics of a standard gun sight. I'm curious to see what happens during the sea trials. The hull is wave piercing for better stability and I'll bet it is a wet ride.

Reply

blight_ April 10, 2013 at 4:04 pm

How durable do you think a DDG or FFG is?

Of course, you can repair steel with welding equipment. Repairing composites will require glue, carbon fiber patches and vacuum seals to compress the epoxy and eliminate air bubbles.

Personally, I'm curious if they could use reactive armor against anti-ship missiles. I suppose if missiles are impact-detonated…

Reply

greg April 12, 2013 at 10:27 am

I think ASM are too big. 500lb warheads instead of 13lb. Even with the counter force of the reactive explosion the 500lb warhead explosion is going to barrel through and reactive tile.

So using physics we can say to stop a missile with a 500lb warhead we would need and explosive force equal to that warhead. IMHO a 500lb reactive tile would do as much damage as the missile.

What do you do for 1000lb Heavy Russian ASM warheads in that case then?

So long story short impossible.

A better technology to explore would be the equivalent of a force field. This technology is real and has been tested on a bradley. If you had enough energy to generate a huge electromagnetic field at or right before the time of impact to immediately after, I think that would work.

That is what I think of when I see startrek anyway.

Reply

blight_ April 12, 2013 at 11:58 am

The electric armor stuff I remember being mentioned was designed to use the impacting object to complete a circuit and superheat an object to vaporization. It too might have issues stopping especially large objects.

At the end of the day the thing that'll save ships is standoff, e.g finding a way to fragment a fast-moving missile with enough standoff between flaming pieces and the hull.

Reply

give_me_a_break April 13, 2013 at 11:29 pm

At 3 billion per ship, they will never let this thing within 200 miles of any hostile coast line

Reply

Sev April 10, 2013 at 8:21 am

Lets test it on the Norks missile launch sites

Reply

Dick Lancaster April 10, 2013 at 9:25 am

Impressive, so long as the barrel is long enough so the muzzle blast doesn't catch this plastic boat on fire.

Reply

William_C1 April 11, 2013 at 3:51 am

If you're worried about fire, better a composite superstructure than an aluminum one.

Reply

Rhys F April 11, 2013 at 10:24 pm
Andy K April 11, 2013 at 3:00 am

Thought Zumwalt closed was cancelledafter DDG 1002…did that change? And why not the laser on a DDG instead of a vessel like the Ponce? Will she ever have to shoot in a combat situation? Many questions, are there any answers?

Reply

d. kellogg April 11, 2013 at 7:37 am

The laser in question, or any foreseeable future ship-based directed energy weapon, is not suitable for stand off surface bombardment.
Rather, the DEWs (laser or even electromagnetic/microwave EMP-type weapon) are more akin to the next-gen CIWS, capable of very rapid line-of-sight (visual range)engagement (no gravity droop nor crosswinds to compensate for) and destruction of smaller targets like missiles, aircraft, and small surface craft.
Very doubtful the USN will ever have such flat-trajectory DEWs arming ships as main armament to the point where we see naval engagements like the space battles out of science fiction.

Reply

d. kellogg April 11, 2013 at 7:38 am

On the note of the 155mm naval gun system,
there IS a lighter version of the AGS suitable for Burke-sized hulls.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday14034weyer...

Of course, for the money spent over the years trying to develop AGS,
adoption of the 8" Mk 71 MCLWG all those years ago would've given greater leeway over the years in developing a whole range of generationally-improved gun-fired PGMs: think 203mm Copperhead surrogate and develop from there, up thru a 203mm Excalibur type, even shells equipped with a navalized PGK-type smart fuze.
But for the end cost the USN will still be paying for production-version LRLAPs,
adopting the POLAR variant of the MLRS would've still been still a wiser choice: it could've effectively quad-packed (akin to Sea Sparrow and ESSM) into any USN ship equipped with Mk41 VLS cells, thus not requiring a purpose-built hull like the Zumwalt.

Reply

Austin R. Davis May 30, 2013 at 12:01 am

what about the navy's plannes for the new railgun syestem i think that has more promise than this

Reply

AmeriToast April 9, 2013 at 4:28 pm

I would agree with you except for the whole LCS thing. I think the navy should stop making them and invest more in these zumwalt destroyers.

Reply

Don Reynerson April 10, 2013 at 11:37 pm

And we have our own army……USMC…….PLUS SEALS……..

Reply

BlackOwl18E April 9, 2013 at 4:42 pm

I agree the LCS is a complete failure.

Reply

PolicyWonk April 9, 2013 at 6:33 pm

Indeed – many feel the LCS is loaded with problems. Currently, it is as lightly armed as a coast guard cutter (but costs a LOT more). Even if it is up-armed, the LCS is only built to the level-1 navy standard: this means its unable to withstand the shock a *fleet oiler* can withstand.

The lack of ability to take a punch (amongst other problems) has caused all the potential customers of LCS (Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a few others) to walk away.

Reply

Big-Dean April 10, 2013 at 12:43 am

foreign customers are not stupid ;-P

Reply

jhm April 10, 2013 at 12:58 am

Such a shame we are though :(

Reply

William_C1 April 10, 2013 at 1:53 am

I'll have to read this study, but isn't the biggest problem the limited (by modern standards) range of the guns? I suppose some sort of guided sub-caliber shell using a sabot would greatly increase range, but that would be awfully expensive.

The Iowas also require a huge crew complement.

Reply

STemplar April 10, 2013 at 2:06 am

How many disaster relief ops could you run from a BB? How many army airmobile units could you stage on one? How would you land a C130 on one? I like BBs but if you just are looking at firepower more SSGNs make more sense than both but carriers provide flexibility in many more non combat missions.

Reply

wpnexp April 13, 2013 at 8:15 am

The problem with the battleships guns were the lack of any real range. A subcaliber round might have added range, but that's no longer an option. A subcal round would have reduced firepower also, but adding a GPS unit to them (which wasn't really an option at the time, would have made an 8" round useful at a somewhat extended range. Putting cruise missiles on a BB to get the range would be more effectively handled by an arsenal shp.

Reply

aaothead April 13, 2013 at 10:14 am

The BB is, (was), an awesome battle platform.

Reply

William_C1 April 10, 2013 at 4:02 am

Landing a C-130 on a carrier was an impressive but impractical feat it turns out.

Reply

oblatt1 April 10, 2013 at 4:15 am

you mean a chinese submariniers wet dream

Reply

STemplar April 10, 2013 at 4:44 am

It would be really impractical on a BB…

Reply

Moo April 10, 2013 at 11:12 am

Until you can up with a better retort, dont bother even commenting u fool.
Racist… oh the usual anti semite response, Apiac shill keep quiet.

Remember Rachel Corrie!!!!

Reply

blight_ April 10, 2013 at 4:03 pm

If there's one truism of warfare: it's spotting the target and putting rounds on target before they can do the same to you.

But unless Zumwalt has native UAV support that can spot for it, or some kind of spotting round with a parachute that would allow it to act as an "observer", then it's effectively blind, or hanging back while someone else incurs significant risk and is potentially neutralized to deliver firing information. Perhaps a AGS round that is low RCS and glides while relaying ISR information?

Reply

elgatoso April 11, 2013 at 2:50 am

Mississippi class 13,000 tons.South Carolina class 16,000 tons

Reply

Belesari April 10, 2013 at 4:20 pm

Wasn't she the dumb a$$ hippie who the Pali's got to sit in front of a bulldozer?

Reply

wpnexp April 10, 2013 at 8:53 pm

Ah yes, remember another useful idiot.

Reply

Moo April 10, 2013 at 6:54 pm

She died trying to bring freedom to the Palestinian people and also to highlight the human rights abuses committed against the Palestinian people.

A freedom u so ignorantly enjoy by the way.

She gave her life for what she believed in. The day she died her deeds that day reverberated around the world.
Before that i did not give two hoots what happened in that part of the world. Now i do.
That woke me up and i will never forget her sacrifice and neither will the millions of people around the world who woke up and smelled the coffee that day too.

You seem a bit Dense Belesari. I don't think you can grasp the gravity of the situation.

It was basically Israels Tienanmen square.

Reply

Moo April 10, 2013 at 8:57 pm

Your entitled to your warped opinion. No wonder you cant get a bearing on your moral compass peering through those crackedlenses.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 10, 2013 at 11:56 pm

crackedhead, if you wanna BS about bad attitude (note that there is no hyphen, look into the mirror and tell that stupid loser in the mirror to get a GED and then a job.

Reply

wpnexp April 10, 2013 at 8:57 pm

The Hamas getting heavier weapons will only give Israel more reason to destroy the whole territory. Now, if the people of Gaza had any sense, they would end this conflict and actually try to get along with Israel. It is not without reason that the most well off Palestinians are those that live in peace in Israel.

Reply

STemplar April 10, 2013 at 11:10 pm

Israel didn't do very well in 2006 to be sure. They had been conducting insurgency and occupation ops for years in the territories and allowed their maneuver warfare skills to atrophy but they got the message. In the Gaza invasion of 08-09 they had learned their less and rolled in hard, it was overwhelmingly one sided.

You can't use a war of attrition as a tool unless you are doing some attriting Hamas simply isn't inflicting and appreciable amount of damage of consequence. They fire a few unguided artillery rockets and the IDF kills their minister of defense and flattens the ministry and parliament. A military approach is gaining them nothing.

I don't think Hamas is politically savvy enough or smart enough to swallow their pride and play the role of victim. That approach would put pressure on the Israelis though, real pressure, but as long as they lob artillery rockets at Israelis cities that are doing nothing, the majority of world governments aren't going to have any real sympathy for them.

Iran's use of them as pawns is very simple. they supply the weapons and money that allow Hamas to be in the position they are in. Fatah would have cut a deal absent Hamas and the Iranians certainly don't want that because as soon as the Israelis and Palestinians cut a deal the Arab League, and most importantly the GCC will very much recognize Israel's rights and Iran can't have that. So they fund Hamas.

Iran does smuggle weapons to Gaza. In recent memory there was a cargo vessel seized with weapons on the Red Sea. The IDF struck a convoy in the Sudan that was Sinai and eventually Gaza bound. Now with all the weapons from Libya I'm sure Iran has enablers on the ground making purchases in North Africa. All reports indicate Sinai is essentially Mad Max with an Arab accent.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 10, 2013 at 11:53 pm

STumpler, Iran is trading with India, Russia, China and other countries in the hundreds of billions every year. That's more than half of the world's population, you brainless American bozo. "International community" your pathetic sorry ass. HaHa.

Reply

crackedlenses April 11, 2013 at 1:14 am

That's rich coming from a guy who's probably sitting somewhere in Gaza hoping the IAF doesn't decide to bomb the stack of rockets in the next room…..

Reply

crackedlenses April 11, 2013 at 2:05 am

She was a bad-attitude college student who sat in front of a bulldozer too long so the Palestinians could create a martyr. You are making an overly big deal about it.

Reply

FormerDirtDart April 11, 2013 at 8:49 am

Both classes pre-war BBs, try to keep up

Reply

riceball April 16, 2013 at 4:26 pm

The Marine Corps is not part of the Navy, we're a separate branch of service under the Dept. of the Navy. As such, the Commandant of the Marine Corps answers to the SecNav and not the CNO.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: