fudog50 wrote:
:
:Excuse me?
:

Why? Did you fart?

If so, you managed to blow all the context away so nobody can tell
what the hell you're replying to.

Oh, never mind. I see that you just brokenly top-posted.

:
:Block II was NOT procured by U.S.
:

True, but the development is being supported by Navy GFE.

:
:It was totally driven by FMS.
:

Really? Then it's interesting that the following statement got made:

In return, the Navy will "reap the benefits of a more advanced cruise
missile in the future, without investing money today," Navy officials
said.

Why would the Navy support development of Harpoon Block II if it was
"totally driven by FMS"?

:
:I am confused anyway because all we fly in a Carrier Battle Group is
:SLAM-ER used with AWW-13 data link pods on the Hornets.
:

You're very confused. The Navy just bought another 245 Harpoons, so
it's funny that you don't think they're used (and SLAM-ER is a very
different weapon, despite using the same body tube and such).

What squadron are you in where you ONLY fly SLAM-ER?

:
:I'm certain P-3's fly the same thing, so I don't know where this
:"Block III" BS comes from?
:

Yes, P-3s fly the same thing (both Harpoons and SLAM-ERs) and your
ignorance with regard to Harpoon Block III is your problem.

If you'd like, send me your navy.mil email address and I'll put you in
touch with Captain Winter and you can explain to him how all this
Network Enable Weapon stuff is BS.

Of course, you could just look him up in the locater and email him
directly about it.

:
:Maybe the Block III is an upgrade to the Block II for FMS?
:

Nope. Block III quite likely won't be exportable.

:
:What role would it have for U.S.? When we are already using
:SLAM-ER????
:

Same role as existing Harpoon. Anti-ship.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson