• Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

President Trump's 9-Day World Tour PBP: G7 Summit (Trade, Brexit, Climate, Immigration, Security)

Saudi Arabia's Naval Capabilities Will Balloon Thanks To Huge U.S. Arms Deal
Riyadh's naval forces increasingly need new and better warships to counter Iran and project power throughout the region.
BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK | MAY 19, 2017​


U.S. President Donald Trump will unveil the largest single American weapons sale to Saudi Arabia to date during his trip to the kingdom, which began on May 19, 2017.

The deal will include weapons and equipment for the Royal Saudi air and land forces, which have been critical in Riyadh’s intervention in Yemen, as well as ballistic missile defense systems essential to for the country to counter Iran's missile forces during a conflict.

However, it may be new support for the relatively small Royal Saudi Navy that speaks more to the country’s desire to project even greater power in the Middle East and beyond.

On May 18, 2017, The New York Timespublished an insider’s look into how White House advisor Jared Kushner, who is also Trump’s son-in-law, had been actively involved in the arms sales, which many expect will be worth between $100 and $110 billion in immediate deals and up to $350 billion in total over the next decade. In particular, Kushner had personally intervened, as is the style of the Trump administration, to get the Saudis a discount on components of the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system – the same weapon the United States had very publicly deployed to South Korea earlier in 2017.

Also on May 18, 2017, Bloombergconfirmed that the Pentagon and their Saudi counterparts would finalize a $6 billion deal with Lockheed Martin for four modified versions of the company's Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship – six percent of the total U.S. arms package. The rest of the deal will include thousands of precision guided munitions, 50 CH-47 cargo helicopters, 60 smaller UH-60 transport choppers, 115 M1A2S Abrams tanks, among other items.

But buried among the palace intrigue and talk of advanced aircraft, precision guided munitions, and anti-ballistic missile defenses, was mention of unspecified “maritime assets” that the Saudi Arabia hoped to acquire from the United States. This would mean “ships” the authors explained, “so the Saudis can assume more of the burden of policing the Persian Gulf and Red Sea against Iranian aggression.”

The warships are the center-piece of the American-funded Saudi Naval Enhancement Program II (SNEP II), which began in 2008. The United States, and the U.S. Navy in particular, supported supported the first SNEP in the 1980s, where the Saudi Arabia purchased a large fleet of modern naval vessels, ranging from frigates to small patrol boats, from the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and other countries. After this modernization project, Riyadh boasted the largest and best equipped naval force in the Persian Gulf region.



The Al Makkah, one of Saudi Arabia's four Al Riyadh-class frigates.

These ships formed the core of the country’s naval forces more or less as they continued to exist three decades later. The Saudi Navy’s only addition since then was its purchase of four modified French La Fayette-class frigates, which it named the Al Riyadh class, in 2003. As of 2017, these nearly 15 year-old ships were the country’s most modern warships. These 4,650-ton vessels have launchers for Exocet anti-ship and Aster 15 surface-to-air missiles, along with four torpedo tubes, a helicopter and a 76mm main gun. The design has limited stealthy features to help make it less visible to enemy radars.

But what was state-of-the-art more than two decades ago is showing its age now. From the very beginning, SNEP II called for four all-new “frigate-like” surface combatants, with a displacement of approximately 3,500 tons. These would replace an equal number of older French-supplied Al Madinah-class ships that the Saudi Navy had received under the original SNEP. This portion of the program also proved to be especially troublesome.


A standard Freedom-variant LCS

The initial requirements seemed relatively steep, with officials in Riyadh interested in a lightweight vessel that still had a radar and battle management capability similar to Lockheed Martin’s advanced Aegis system, including its powerful AN/SPY-1 passive electronically scanned array. In reality, “Aegis-like” really meant that it would have technology derived from that equipment.

Instead of the full-size SPY-1D radar, the new ships would have the SPY-1F variant specifically for frigates and corvettes, which had half the range of the standard unit. The COMBATSS-21, which included some components of the Aegis system, would link the radar to the ship’s other sensors and weapons.

Lockheed Martin produced both of these products. So, U.S. officials and company representatives proposed installing this equipment, along with a 16-cell Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS), deck-mounted Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers, and SeaRAM close-defense systems, on a modified version of the firm’s Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The resulting warship became known as the Multi-Mission Surface Combatant (MMSC). In October 2015, the Saudis agreed to buy the ships. While at Foxtrot Alpha, The War Zone’s Tyler Rogoway wrote a deep dive into the precise capabilities of these planned ships.

The primary weapon for the ship's Mk 41 VLS would be RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles, "quad-packed" four to each of the 16 launch cells, for area air defense against both aircraft and cruise missiles. The latest version of the SM-2 was another potential option, which would offer even longer range, but less plentiful, anti-air and even anti-surface capabilities.

Unfortunately, according to a report by Defense News three months later, the Saudi Navy had become horrified at the expected price tag, which unnamed sources said was between $750 million and $1 billion per ship. In addition, Lockheed Martin told the Saudis it would take up to seven years to deliver the first example. By that point, SNEP had been running for nearly a decade and the officials in Riyadh had already moved ahead with a separate $1.9 billion deal to buy 10 MH-60R helicopters and associated weapons and equipment, another part of the SNEP II plan.

It seems impressive that the Saudis have been willing to pay even more in the end for the ships, suggesting they may come with new and improved capabilities over the original design proposal, or it could just be a symptom of the changing political winds in Washington.

The Saudi's purchase of the ships will be important for the U.S. Navy, since the they will likely fund development of a drastically upgraded LCS variant—one that includes area air defense capabilities—that many, including some members of Congress, have been pushing the Navy towards procuring instead of a far less capable "up gunned" Littoral Combat Ship concept. Sharing the burden with the Saudis in crafting the new configuration would not only offset development costs, but if the Navy were to also buy the ship, it would push the unit cost down overall.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...abilities-will-balloon-thanks-to-us-arms-deal
 
Last edited:
Lol so much swagger, so much buffoonery, so much winning, so much I'm with her, so much not my president, so much identity politics, so much rustle mania, so it's all the same literally nothing has changed.

And everyone just gobbles it all up.
 
Trump is a worldwide cuck.


Talks about how dangerous muslims are.

Gives them weapons.






Lets hear how trumpsters defend this.
Let's be realistic here, these weapons pose no threat whatsoever to the USA. Are the saudis going to use M-1 Abrams tanks to attack the USA? A F-16?
The danger from muslims is not from conventional warfare but terrorism. Some muslim armed with a knife inside a plane is much more dangerous to the USA than a saudi soldier with a modern tank.
That's from a pure realpolitik view, of course, these saudis will kill innocent Yemenis, but Trump doesn't care, he just made a 100+ billion sale. That's actually a very America First position.

As a president I would ban muslim immigration but I'd keep selling them weapons to make money.
 
He said that muslims hate America, but he wants to give them guns. The guy who created the Muslim travel ban wrote his speach that he will give; let's see if he uses the term "radical islamic terrorism". I have a feeling he will bitch out.

pull that quote from him
 
pull that quote from him
Trump's said a tremendous amount of things about Islam. Bigly.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...e-of-trumps-comments-about-islam-and-muslims/

Nov. 16, 2015: Following a series of terrorist attacks in Paris, Trump said on MSNBC that he would “strongly consider” closing mosques. “I would hate to do it, but it's something that you're going to have to strongly consider because some of the ideas and some of the hatred — the absolute hatred — is coming from these areas,” he said.

Nov. 30, 2015: On MSNBC, a reporter asked Trump if he thinks Islam is an inherently peaceful religion that's been perverted by a small percentage of followers or if it is an inherently violent religion. Trump responded: “Well, all I can say … there’s something going on. You know, there's something definitely going on. I don't know that that question can be answered.” He also said: “We are not loved by many Muslims.”

March 9, 2016:On CNN, Trump said: “I think Islam hates us. There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.”

Lot's of other stuff to read in there too. Very sad, very low energy stuff. Tremendously bigly. Everyone says so.
 
Let's be realistic here, these weapons pose no threat whatsoever to the USA. Are the saudis going to use M-1 Abrams tanks to attack the USA? A F-16?
The danger from muslims is not from conventional warfare but terrorism. Some muslim armed with a knife inside a plane is much more dangerous to the USA than a saudi soldier with a modern tank.
That's from a pure realpolitik view, of course, these saudis will kill innocent Yemenis, but Trump doesn't care, he just made a 100+ billion sale. That's actually a very America First position.

As a president I would ban muslim immigration but I'd keep selling them weapons to make money.
Your legs must be tired from mental gymnastics
 
Great job by Mr. Preident brokering a deal that will finally end ISIS and bring peace to the Middle East.

What a boost to the world and pur economy. That's like 4 or 5 birds with one stone.

GOAT. Move over George and Abraham.
Quoted for unabashed optimism








Also, take your medication, mister President
 
Trumpbots are kinda avoiding this subject.
Not that I blame em, most are likely pretty unhappy with it
 
So... How do the Muslim hating excuse me "Muslim extremist" hating conservatives fill about their leader making a $100 billion arms deal with terrorist supporting Saudi Arabia??

I ask conservatives specifically because I can already imagine how most liberals feel about the situation.

"Saudi Arabia is said to be the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist jihadism,which forms the ideological basis of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and others. Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, according to Hillary Clinton. According to a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups."(Wikipedia)

I find it pretty damn funny, especially when considering how big a deal Trump made about the Muslim ban and the general threat of Islamic terror in the U.S. . Then he turns around and makes a billion dollar deal with the main sponsor of terrorism in the middle east and probable conspirator of the 9/11 attacks lmao!

Its craziness really lmao! smh sheesh

https://www.wsj.com/articles/presid...udi-arabia-as-overseas-trip-starts-1495263979
 
So we are arming people that want to kill us? WHat could possibly go wrong
 
Something something Hillary Obama something deep state Zionist globalist bankers something compromised
 
This is one of those issues that should cut across invisible party lines, and unite most of us by illuminating the fact that almost all of us hate this shit.

Democrat, Republican, Independent, Whatever.
 
trump4n-3-web.jpg

liar-trump.jpg


Honestly, fuck every single moron who voted for this douche nozzle. If I have it my way, Trump voters have to get branded.
 
I want to know what kind of role Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump have in this sale. Donald Trump is not bringing them for a family picnic. Those two are probably the biggest swamp creatures currently in the White House.
 
Good! I love being a prick towards the legion of Left-wingers and Right-wingers in the WR, for they are the scourge of hypocrisy that caused this polarized microcosm.

There are two kinds of Americans who can't whine about the U.S' on-going arm sales to Saudi Arabia: those who votes for Democrats who wants to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, and those who votes for Republicans who wants to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia.

You simply can't vote for someone who openly wants to maintain the status quo, and then bitch about that status quo. If you truly don't want something to happen again, you wouldn't have voted for the people who have long accepted it as an absolute necessity.

If you can honestly, truly say you have always voted for politicians like Rand Paul who are against selling weapons to the Arabs, instead of those who would be happy to sell billions of dollars worth of weaponry to our part-time allies the Middle East (Bush/Gore, Obama/McCain, Trump/Hillary), I'll be happy to continue this discussion.

But if you are a proud card-carrying Democrat or Republican who did your share as a voter to help maintaining the status quo, I can tell you right now that I don't even bother to click on the Debate League thread, because I do not wish to waste my limited time with hypocrites.

Your premise is idiotic. The idea that unless you've(general you) voted for a politician that you approve of(you, Arkain2K) that you(general you) don't have a tenable position is impossibly absurd. Selling arms isn't the only policy position in the world, and every candidate has a position on what is basically an infinite number of issues. You have to find people who you think will do a net good in the world, or at least less harm than the viable(electable) alternative. If you think that voting for Obama instead of McCain gives one no right to criticize on issues they disagree with, then you are basically an intellectual child.

I am not a Democrat or a Republican, I am far left of the Democratic party, but would gladly vote for a Republican who had ideas I believed in. I didn't vote for Hillary, and didn't vote at all this year for the first time in my life, because I am tired of voting for less harm. I voted for Bernie in the primary because I thought he would do good in the world. Although, I still didn't like his foreign policy.

Your position, again, is imbecilic. Bernie could have done net good in the world, and was worth supporting. Hillary was simply the lesser of two evils, and so I did not support her. But, regardless, even people who voted for Trump have a right to complain about policies that they disagree with. The idea that people must be perfectly ideologically pure(your interpretation of it) to not be hypocrites is infantile and ridiculous.

The reason you wouldn't debate me in the debate thread is because you would get annihilated. Your pathetic displays of "intellect" are simply the markings of someone too cowardly to hold definable intellectual and moral positions. It's why you post links to articles and twitter while almost never adding your own thoughts. Simply put, you're incapable of it.

<JonesDXSuckIt>
 
As if Trump is the first and only President to do this.
Lame and weak as always, but what I find interesting is the sudden shift as soon as Bannon was out and Kushner was in.
Yeah, it's almost like Trump himself doesn't actually give a single fuck what happens as long as he gets to be in power... that CAN'T be, can it?
 
Back
Top