On 4/20/2014 3:23 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

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...

Warships can stay out to sea for years, anything they need can be
delivered by an oiler or a helicopter.


They could but they don't. Crew would go nuts. Even nuke subs limit
their patrols to six months max.

Longest "at sea" period I had was 41 days and that felt like years.
Channel fever gets turned up a few notches.

On 4/20/14, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.

On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.

On 4/20/14, 5:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.



I'll keep that in mind with my next order of boat missiles. I did order
a bunch of .38 Special FMJs for my new six shooter, but I doubt they'd
be adequate to take down a mighty stealth dory.

On 4/20/2014 5:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 5:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.



I'll keep that in mind with my next order of boat missiles. I did order
a bunch of .38 Special FMJs for my new six shooter, but I doubt they'd
be adequate to take down a mighty stealth dory.


Hey, this discussion has been closer to being on-topic than discussing
whether Jesus had a mortal Jewish father.

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 1:23:16 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:12:22 -0400, 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 not sunk and in relative terms, there was not even that big a

loss of life. Compared to WWII ships that were damaged and sailed

away, it was just a flesh wound.



That incident was just because we were lax in our security levels. A

small boat charging a warship like that in a hostile port these days

would be blown out of the water.

I bet you would even be engaged if you did it in the US (probably

simply arrested but they might shoot)

You go first ;-)

One of the girls on our boat on the river cruise down to Charleston took a couple of pictures of the sub base as we were passing by, against my warnings. We were boarded by the navy police in the RIB with the .50 caliber that is stationed on the river 24/7. The guy didn't have much of a sense of humor, but after he watched her delete the pics from her camera (from a vantage point that gave him a good look down the front of her skimpy black bikini), he let us go.

On another trip, we were passing by an unmarked blue and white cargo ship that was being loaded in the harbor. Got too close, and a couple of coasties in RIBs chased us away. As we swung out and passed by, we could see military trucks being loaded.

They seem to take security fairly seriously.

On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.
I'm sure Wayne's boat has numerous long range capabilities that your
typical twin Volvo pseudo trawler can't duplicate.

On 4/20/2014 5:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 5:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.



I'll keep that in mind with my next order of boat missiles. I did order
a bunch of .38 Special FMJs for my new six shooter, but I doubt they'd
be adequate to take down a mighty stealth dory.

Which ruger six shooter did you order and why. I'm still interested in
the Smith 7 shooter.

On 4/20/2014 5:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 5:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.



I'll keep that in mind with my next order of boat missiles. I did order
a bunch of .38 Special FMJs for my new six shooter, but I doubt they'd
be adequate to take down a mighty stealth dory.


Hey, this discussion has been closer to being on-topic than discussing
whether Jesus had a mortal Jewish father.


Don't push it ;-)

On 4/20/2014 8:27 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.


You mean when they turn on the look at me switch.


You guys are really behind the times. It was realized early on that
radar and ship mounted radar guided munitions had the serious
disadvantage of providing an electronic "return" guidance path to the
point of origin.

Modern ships don't provide that guidance and in many cases ship based
radar isn't used at all in the delivery of missiles and munitions.