On 4/20/14, 11:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 11:26 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:

Still the fueling bit...sheesh.

Oh, and the cloaking device is a reference to Startrek.

You read too many books and watch too many movies.



Yeah, I definitely read too many books. That's probably why I think the
idea of a "stealth" ship the length of two football fields is bull****.

Most of the movies I watch have little to do with warfare, per se.

On 4/20/2014 11:24 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 11:14 AM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 4/20/2014 10:54 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 10:03 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 9:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 9:03 AM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 4/20/2014 8:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 10:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Here's a game for you Harry.

It's a "hi res" Google satellite image of the 61 million square
miles
of the Pacific Ocean.

I zoomed in close enough to draw a fairly wide, bright red line
that is
605 feet long (all to scale) and saved it on the image. I then
zoomed
back out to capture the full Pacific again and took a screen
capture
of it.

You mission, should you chose to accept it, is to find the red
line.
You can save the picture and zoom away. It's there, guarantee it.
I know where it is, so I can zoom in and easily find it.

Can you?

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ch/Pacific.jpg



I don't know...can I?

The photo is hardly "hi res."

There are aspects to locating this ship you haven't really
considered.

It's a large ship, and it is powered by fossil fuel. A lot of fossil
fuel. Refueling these ships at sea is a very risky business,
though it
can be done. It is going to have to make port for fuel, for
supplies,
and sometimes for maintenance. The number of places you can "park" a
600-foot warship are limited. The ship will be seen arriving and
departing. Ports of call many times are announced. Once its
location is
known, it can be tracked by the usual methods, including by
submarine
and by aircraft and by satellite. The Navy's PR department says the
powerplant heat bloom is minimized, as is the ship's wake and
disturbance on the ocean surface. Maybe not as well as the Navy
would
like, eh? Military PR is the very definition of self-serving.

Now, of course, very few if any of the third world countries we make
war
on have the assets to do this. But some of those countries have
sponsors
or are client states of major countries that do have modern ships,
planes, submarines, satellites. It doesn't take much effort to
"communicate" the location of an enemy's assets. I'm confident the
Russians would not be displeased if some ******** of a country
sucking
on Moscow's teat managed to put a hole through the hull of the
Zumwalt.

On another note, isn't it wonderful that I pose these "provocative"
issues here? It gives the boys something to discuss besides
Herring's
tiptoeing through the tulips, Tim's Remembrance of Posts Past*,
W'hine's
telling us just how big and fancy his boat is, Bert's
regurgitation of
his fondness for John Birch Society bull****,
Ingersoll's schizophrenia, CalifBill's own brand of right-wing
insanity,
FlaJim's junior high school insults, and so forth and so on.

As always, have nice day!


* Full apologies to Marcel Proust and his À la recherche du temps
perdu...

Your issues are about as provocative as a dog lifting his leg to pee.


He also hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Navy ships have been
refueling at sea every day since they ran on coal or bunker oil.
Since
the mid 1970's the newer frigates and DLGs are powered with gas
turbines
which are also refueled at sea on a regular basis. "Oilers" aren't
Oilers anymore.

In today's Navy the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers
perform the roles of several former ship classes including destroyers
and cruisers. The expensive to build cruiser class ship has gone the
way of the WWII battleship. The DLGs have more firepower, are
armored
(including kelvar), have Aegis Combat Systems and sophisticated,
Electronic Countermeasure Systems that are constantly being improved
upon. They have become the backbone of US Navy warships along with
carriers and submarines. They are efficient, fast and cheaper to
build
and maintain.

The USS Zumwald is just another potential step in the evolution of
destroyer technology and capabilities. It may or may not become the
"go-to" design of the future but in order to determine that, designs,
CAD drawings and schematics have to be turned into hardware for
testing.

But, back to the ancient Navy ... the one we were in ... here's what
being on a destroyer was like back when I was on a couple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih7ygOUz_Wg




Thanks for the Navy PR and for missing the point.

The point wasn't that the ship had to make port to refuel. Refueling
was
just an example. The point was that the ship had to make port for any
number of reasons, and that when it did, it would be impossible for the
ship to be "stealthy" because its presence would be known and could be
communicated, and it could be watched while in port and when leaving
port. It's not difficult watching nuclear submarines making and leaving
port, and they are a hell of a lot stealthier than the Zumwalt, and
even
they can be tracked.

Any large warship at sea can be found and damaged or sunk. You can't
hide a military surface ship two football fields long at sea. The
Zumwalt is only 200 feet shorter than the Bismarck, and it was spotted
and sunk.

Perhaps the Navy can waste a hundred billion more dollars and come up
with a cloaking device.




OMG. The *Bismarck?*

What type of electronic countermeasures did the Bismarck have?

You're note about refueling ... you said, "risky, but it *can* be done.
Not only *can* it be done, it is done everyday. There's actually
significant risk refueling in port. This is JP5 kerosene type fuel they
are using.

Pull your head out of the dark ages man.


I was hi lined off a Can during a refueling once, and of course the
required payment for such a thrill ride was a trip to the bitter end of
the hi line.


This was actually taken on a "Dependent's Cruise" off the coast of
Italy. The CO's wife is being hi-lined from one ship to ours.
Bring back memories?

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img017.jpg

Yes, but I don't remember the orange protective floatation curtains.
That must be something reserved for dignitaries.

On 4/20/2014 11:26 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 11:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 11:06 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 10:54 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 10:03 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 9:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 9:03 AM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 4/20/2014 8:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 10:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Here's a game for you Harry.

It's a "hi res" Google satellite image of the 61 million square
miles
of the Pacific Ocean.

I zoomed in close enough to draw a fairly wide, bright red line
that is
605 feet long (all to scale) and saved it on the image. I then
zoomed
back out to capture the full Pacific again and took a screen
capture
of it.

You mission, should you chose to accept it, is to find the red
line.
You can save the picture and zoom away. It's there, guarantee
it.
I know where it is, so I can zoom in and easily find it.

Can you?

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ch/Pacific.jpg



I don't know...can I?

The photo is hardly "hi res."

There are aspects to locating this ship you haven't really
considered.

It's a large ship, and it is powered by fossil fuel. A lot of
fossil
fuel. Refueling these ships at sea is a very risky business,
though it
can be done. It is going to have to make port for fuel, for
supplies,
and sometimes for maintenance. The number of places you can
"park" a
600-foot warship are limited. The ship will be seen arriving and
departing. Ports of call many times are announced. Once its
location is
known, it can be tracked by the usual methods, including by
submarine
and by aircraft and by satellite. The Navy's PR department says the
powerplant heat bloom is minimized, as is the ship's wake and
disturbance on the ocean surface. Maybe not as well as the Navy
would
like, eh? Military PR is the very definition of self-serving.

Now, of course, very few if any of the third world countries we
make
war
on have the assets to do this. But some of those countries have
sponsors
or are client states of major countries that do have modern ships,
planes, submarines, satellites. It doesn't take much effort to
"communicate" the location of an enemy's assets. I'm confident the
Russians would not be displeased if some ******** of a country
sucking
on Moscow's teat managed to put a hole through the hull of the
Zumwalt.

On another note, isn't it wonderful that I pose these "provocative"
issues here? It gives the boys something to discuss besides
Herring's
tiptoeing through the tulips, Tim's Remembrance of Posts Past*,
W'hine's
telling us just how big and fancy his boat is, Bert's
regurgitation of
his fondness for John Birch Society bull****,
Ingersoll's schizophrenia, CalifBill's own brand of right-wing
insanity,
FlaJim's junior high school insults, and so forth and so on.

As always, have nice day!


* Full apologies to Marcel Proust and his À la recherche du temps
perdu...

Your issues are about as provocative as a dog lifting his leg to
pee.


He also hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Navy ships have been
refueling at sea every day since they ran on coal or bunker oil.
Since
the mid 1970's the newer frigates and DLGs are powered with gas
turbines
which are also refueled at sea on a regular basis. "Oilers" aren't
Oilers anymore.

In today's Navy the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers
perform the roles of several former ship classes including destroyers
and cruisers. The expensive to build cruiser class ship has gone the
way of the WWII battleship. The DLGs have more firepower, are
armored
(including kelvar), have Aegis Combat Systems and sophisticated,
Electronic Countermeasure Systems that are constantly being improved
upon. They have become the backbone of US Navy warships along with
carriers and submarines. They are efficient, fast and cheaper to
build
and maintain.

The USS Zumwald is just another potential step in the evolution of
destroyer technology and capabilities. It may or may not become the
"go-to" design of the future but in order to determine that, designs,
CAD drawings and schematics have to be turned into hardware for
testing.

But, back to the ancient Navy ... the one we were in ... here's what
being on a destroyer was like back when I was on a couple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih7ygOUz_Wg




Thanks for the Navy PR and for missing the point.

The point wasn't that the ship had to make port to refuel. Refueling
was
just an example. The point was that the ship had to make port for any
number of reasons, and that when it did, it would be impossible for
the
ship to be "stealthy" because its presence would be known and could be
communicated, and it could be watched while in port and when leaving
port. It's not difficult watching nuclear submarines making and
leaving
port, and they are a hell of a lot stealthier than the Zumwalt, and
even
they can be tracked.

Any large warship at sea can be found and damaged or sunk. You can't
hide a military surface ship two football fields long at sea. The
Zumwalt is only 200 feet shorter than the Bismarck, and it was spotted
and sunk.

Perhaps the Navy can waste a hundred billion more dollars and come up
with a cloaking device.




OMG. The *Bismarck?*

What type of electronic countermeasures did the Bismarck have?

You're note about refueling ... you said, "risky, but it *can* be
done.
Not only *can* it be done, it is done everyday. There's actually
significant risk refueling in port. This is JP5 kerosene type fuel
they
are using.

Pull your head out of the dark ages man.




You're *still* hung up on *refueling* in port. These ships make port for
many reasons.

And "electronic countermeasures" wouldn't have prevented the Bismarck
from being spotted. It was seen visually, not electronically. You know,
*big* ship, distinct profile, not easy to hide from visual and other
sorts of observation. It is the height of arrogance for the Navy to
believe a huge surface ship is just going to disappear while at sea.




Harry, that's not what electronic countermeasures are for. Good grief.
They are not a cloaking device. You must be reading the "Philadelphia
Experiment" (a hoax).

BTW .. don't know if you watched the video I linked to but you may find
this interesting . Or maybe not.

The part that shows refueling at sea reflects a tradition in the Navy
that not many are aware of. The guy in the hardhat giving the orders is
called the "Oil King". The Oil King is selected based on capability and
experience and not on rate or rank. In the video he happens to be a
lowly 2nd class Petty Officer (E-5) but during the refueling evolution
he is in total and complete command, second only to the Commanding
Officer in terms of responsibility. It's one of the rare instances
where a junior enlisted can bark out orders to those who out- rank him,
including commissioned officers.


Still the fueling bit...sheesh.

Oh, and the cloaking device is a reference to Startrek.

He's just filling you in on some of the details since you weren't privy
to them in your line of work.

On 4/20/2014 11:46 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 11:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 11:26 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:

Still the fueling bit...sheesh.

Oh, and the cloaking device is a reference to Startrek.

You read too many books and watch too many movies.



Yeah, I definitely read too many books. That's probably why I think the
idea of a "stealth" ship the length of two football fields is bull****.

Most of the movies I watch have little to do with warfare, per se.

What do you mean "per se", arsehole?

In article ,
says...


The USS Zumwald is just another potential step in the evolution of
destroyer technology and capabilities. It may or may not become the
"go-to" design of the future but in order to determine that, designs,
CAD drawings and schematics have to be turned into hardware for testing.


It shouldn't even be called a Destroyer. It's a Cruiser.
It's 600 feet long.
What next, 300 foot "patrol boats?"
Got a feeling that hull shape won't work well.

On 4/20/14, 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:03:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Any large warship at sea can be found and damaged or sunk. You can't
hide a military surface ship two football fields long at sea. The
Zumwalt is only 200 feet shorter than the Bismarck, and it was spotted
and sunk.

When was the last US warship "found and sunk"?



The U.S.S. Cole was "found" and seriously damaged in an attack in Yemen.
It didn't sink, but it was rendered useless.

Are you trying to say it can't happen?

On 4/20/2014 12:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:03:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Any large warship at sea can be found and damaged or sunk. You can't
hide a military surface ship two football fields long at sea. The
Zumwalt is only 200 feet shorter than the Bismarck, and it was spotted
and sunk.

When was the last US warship "found and sunk"?



The U.S.S. Cole was "found" and seriously damaged in an attack in Yemen.
It didn't sink, but it was rendered useless.

Are you trying to say it can't happen?


It was "found" tied up to a pier, powered down. Good grief.

On 4/20/2014 1:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:26:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:




Still the fueling bit...sheesh.

Oh, and the cloaking device is a reference to Startrek.

I don't know why you are so hung up on the stealth.

In most cases we would make a big deal about the ship being there.
You usually want people to see your "big stick" in hopes you won't
have to use it.
If it does become necessary, this is certainly a big stick with far
more firepower than the Bismark at 100 times the range.

I do tend to agree a but that this "stealth" thing is just the
"Chlorophyll" of the 21st century. (a 50s reference for you kids).

Being stealthy is just an edge, not a panacea. In a war, having an
edge is a good thing tho. If you can see them from farther away than
they can see you, it is a lot easier to kill them. This ship is far
from defenseless against just about anything..



No ship is totally immune to attack but modern naval vessels aren't as
easy to hit as Harry would like to think. Just because they are big
doesn't make them more vulnerable. In addition, "big" is relative. A
1,100 foot aircraft carrier may look big at the dock or beside a smaller
destroyer but in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific, the size
difference really doesn't matter. They are both tiny specks in a huge
ocean.

The whole idea behind ships like the Zumwalt is that it combines several
state-of-the-art technologies that allows it to engage and likely
destroy a threat that is over the horizon, 100 miles away. Anti-ship
missiles can be deadly but they rely on some form of guidance system to
direct them to the target. The more difficult to be seen or detected,
the less likelihood of being hit. In addition, ships today have very
sophisticated electronic countermeasure systems that can redirect
incoming missiles.

On 4/20/2014 1:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:51:30 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/20/2014 12:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:

The U.S.S. Cole was "found" and seriously damaged in an attack in Yemen.
It didn't sink, but it was rendered useless.

Are you trying to say it can't happen?


It was "found" tied up to a pier, powered down. Good grief.


That was a serious intelligence and security failure that should have
been blamed on everyone from the captain to the CnC.

What were the rules of engagement and were on they on any kind of
alert status at all?
Aden was far from a friendly port, even in those days.



The Cole was under a "High Threat Level" and in "Condition Bravo"
except few knew it. The Rules of Engagement at the time was still not
to open fire unless fired upon.

That changed.

On 4/20/2014 2:45 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:30:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/20/2014 1:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:26:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:




Still the fueling bit...sheesh.

Oh, and the cloaking device is a reference to Startrek.

I don't know why you are so hung up on the stealth.

In most cases we would make a big deal about the ship being there.
You usually want people to see your "big stick" in hopes you won't
have to use it.
If it does become necessary, this is certainly a big stick with far
more firepower than the Bismark at 100 times the range.

I do tend to agree a but that this "stealth" thing is just the
"Chlorophyll" of the 21st century. (a 50s reference for you kids).

Being stealthy is just an edge, not a panacea. In a war, having an
edge is a good thing tho. If you can see them from farther away than
they can see you, it is a lot easier to kill them. This ship is far
from defenseless against just about anything..



No ship is totally immune to attack but modern naval vessels aren't as
easy to hit as Harry would like to think. Just because they are big
doesn't make them more vulnerable. In addition, "big" is relative. A
1,100 foot aircraft carrier may look big at the dock or beside a smaller
destroyer but in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific, the size
difference really doesn't matter. They are both tiny specks in a huge
ocean.

The whole idea behind ships like the Zumwalt is that it combines several
state-of-the-art technologies that allows it to engage and likely
destroy a threat that is over the horizon, 100 miles away. Anti-ship
missiles can be deadly but they rely on some form of guidance system to
direct them to the target. The more difficult to be seen or detected,
the less likelihood of being hit. In addition, ships today have very
sophisticated electronic countermeasure systems that can redirect
incoming missiles.


I always wondered how that stealth works when they turn on the radar.


Google up "frequency agility radar" of which there are many types and
modes.