On 4/20/2014 8:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:01:11 -0400, "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 understand you can juggle around the frequency but any radiation at
all from empty ocean should attract some attention.

It is sort of the doppleganger of how you can see a stealth aircraft.
The airplane doesn't reflect a meaningful amount of your radar signal
but it is a black hole in the sky where you also do not see the normal
background radiation from TV stations, cell towers and such.
It may not scream "airplane" but it is an anomaly worth being
suspicious of.


Trust me. Navy ships don't pinpoint their location with radar emissions
anymore. They did back in the systems of the 1950's and 1960's but that
changed in the newer class ships and new radar systems. Phased array
radar can send transmit a very narrow, directional beam, with emission
cut off in all other directions.

On 4/20/14, 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.



*That* discussion *was* about Easter and Jesus. I've always been more
interested in another aspect of the life of Jesus...whether he had a wife.

On 4/20/2014 8:57 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:11:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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.


The typical "weather" cruise was 45 days in the middle of the ocean
but I was on a Bravo (North Atlantic) that went 53,(Absecon Nov/Dec
65).
We used to laugh at Navy guys who were in port every week or two and
called us puddle pirates,



My 41 "dayer" was shortly after reporting aboard my first ship. We
headed south, stopped at GTMO, then continued south doing hide and seek
exercises with a nuke sub for a month. When the exercise was over we
were off the coast of Brazil and about 100 miles to the equator. The CO
decided it would be a grand plan to extend the cruise by a couple of
days to cross the equator and convert a bunch of us Pollywogs into
Shellbacks. I still have my card.

Stupid, silly stuff but good memories as I look back upon them now.

On 4/20/2014 9:00 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:33:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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 understand passive missile FC systems but how do you find the target
in the first place without something active? (if they are dark)


It's not "a" system. It's a combination of combat system capabilities
and choice of weapons. A ship can still illuminate a target by radar
without providing a return guidance path that is useful. There are
several "fire and forget" missile variants that once fired acquire and
lock onto the target using it's own radar or laser target designation.
They are capable of "over the horizon" seek and destroy. When operating
with a task force there is typically a Hawkeye E-2 (carrier based) in
the air which is basically a smaller version of an AWACS flying Combat
Command and Control station that interfaces all the combat systems of
the task group, including the ship's AEGIS system.

On 4/20/2014 9:23 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 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.



*That* discussion *was* about Easter and Jesus. I've always been more
interested in another aspect of the life of Jesus...whether he had a wife.

On topic for a boating newsgroup, eh?

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/20/2014 9:23 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 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.



*That* discussion *was* about Easter and Jesus. I've always been more
interested in another aspect of the life of Jesus...whether he had a wife.

On topic for a boating newsgroup, eh?

This isn't a boating newsgroup

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

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.

Nobody needs battleships or cruisers except the Russia and China. They
haven't been able to steal our designs for smaller missiles. Take a look
at a Soviet Cruiser and tell me what you see?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ch...raina1990a.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...03-N-5024R-003
_USS_Port_Royal_(DDG_73)_departed_on_deployment.jp g

The technological capabilities of the respective countries in on
display.

The Port Royal is designated a CG. It's about 5000 tons lighter and
40' shorter than the "destroyer" Zumwalt.
Destroyers are meant for support of capitol ships and ASW.
Why call the Zumwalt a destroyer? It's not under previous and long held
definitions. Apparently they just "did it."
Pretty stupid calling a cruiser a destroyer.
Even if the Navy no longer plans to build what they previously called
"destroyers" they should have called the Zumwalt a cruiser.
That's my humble opinion.
That it's named for Zumwalt is fitting. He transformed the Navy from
hard-asses to the "kinder and gentler" Navy.
Now his name is attached to redefining ship classes.
Personally, I don't think that ships will fare well in heavy sea.
It's a cluster**** anyway.
Dead end, as the Navy has canceled them, and will build only 3 instead
of the originally planned 32.
They're going back to building Arleigh Burke class destroyers.
If they have any sense they'll re-designate the 3 Zumwalt class they
build as cruisers.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:20:01 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
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.


I'm sure Wayne's boat has numerous long range capabilities that your
typical twin Volvo pseudo trawler can't duplicate.

===

Some of this stuff just can't be discussed outside of classified
circles. We do know for sure that there are very few, if any, pseudo
trawlers in the Caribbean. Bucking the winter trade winds for 1,000
miles takes the real thing.

On 4/20/2014 11:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

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.

Nobody needs battleships or cruisers except the Russia and China. They
haven't been able to steal our designs for smaller missiles. Take a look
at a Soviet Cruiser and tell me what you see?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ch...raina1990a.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...03-N-5024R-003
_USS_Port_Royal_(DDG_73)_departed_on_deployment.jp g

The technological capabilities of the respective countries in on
display.

The Port Royal is designated a CG. It's about 5000 tons lighter and
40' shorter than the "destroyer" Zumwalt.
Destroyers are meant for support of capitol ships and ASW.
Why call the Zumwalt a destroyer? It's not under previous and long held
definitions. Apparently they just "did it."
Pretty stupid calling a cruiser a destroyer.
Even if the Navy no longer plans to build what they previously called
"destroyers" they should have called the Zumwalt a cruiser.
That's my humble opinion.
That it's named for Zumwalt is fitting. He transformed the Navy from
hard-asses to the "kinder and gentler" Navy.
Now his name is attached to redefining ship classes.
Personally, I don't think that ships will fare well in heavy sea.
It's a cluster**** anyway.
Dead end, as the Navy has canceled them, and will build only 3 instead
of the originally planned 32.
They're going back to building Arleigh Burke class destroyers.
If they have any sense they'll re-designate the 3 Zumwalt class they
build as cruisers.





I am sure the Pentagon and Navy appreciate your humble opinion.

Over the years there have been many new classes of ships that went into
semi-production. Some have been successes (like the Arleigh Burke class
and it's predecessor, the Spruance class) and some only had a few built
after determining design deficiencies in the initial builds or due to
changes in mission requirements.

The Arleigh Burke class has been the most successful post WWII destroyer
design and the numbers and configurations built reflect the mission
requirements of the Navy since the mid 1980's. But again, mission
requirements have changed and the Zumwalt represents, as least on paper,
what future requirements lay ahead. If it proves to be successful it
will mean fewer destroyers in active service overall (we currently have
over 60 Arleigh Burke class in commission) and a likely reduction in
overall Navy Task Groups which will include decommissioning and not
replacing capital ships like aircraft carriers. If it is not
successful or if mission requirements change again, the USS Zumwalt may
prove to be the only one of it's class to be built.

As for calling the Zumwalt a destroyer instead of a cruiser simply
because of it's length, there's plenty of precedence of a ship's class
growing over the years depending on mission requirements. Destroyer
Escorts (DE) were traditionally smaller than a Destroyer, armed more
lightly and were primarily anti-submarine platforms. They were cheap to
build in numbers and considered to be somewhat expendable in a naval
battle situation. In the 60's and 70's DEs began to grow in size from
315 feet to over 450 feet, larger than some WWII class Destroyers. They
were also re-designated as Frigates instead of Destroyer Escorts. Now,
Frigates are now also being phased out as mission requirements have changed.

On 4/21/2014 2:00 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:55:27 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:33:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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 understand passive missile FC systems but how do you find the target
in the first place without something active? (if they are dark)

Somebody has to see them with a radar and then that position information
needs to be relayed to the airspace controller.

Dick is right. I really got out of that business in the 60s and we had
"hand me down" hardware at the time.

The newest thing I actually worked on was a Mk 56. That was at the
limit of it's capability tracking an airliner. The only thing that we
had that was close to the state of the art was our ASW stuff. We had
Mk 44 and Mk46 torpedoes on board. The sonar was still new enough that
the FTs didn't even know what the hell it was. (no need to know).
I think the "weather" stations were eliminated by sono buoys and other
listening hardware as much as anything else. Satellites had eliminated
the actual weather mission years before.


Although I was in the ancient Navy for over 9 years, I learned more
about some of the newer and current shipboard systems since I left the
Navy and worked as a civilian on some military development and
procurement programs. Most involved specific components that are
integrated into the overall scheme of things. It is some amazing
technology and it works which is also amazing given the rough conditions
it is used in.

I had an interesting (to me anyway) time in the Navy. A strange chain
of events led to being assigned to a project group rather than as
traditional ship's company on the two ships I spent time on. When the
project was transferred from the first ship to the second, I was
transferred along with the project.

At the time the project was classified but is no longer. It was the
initial deployment, testing and de-bugging of a passive sonar towed
array system used to detect and identify ships and submarines without
emitting traditional sonar "pings". A stationary ground based system
called "SOSUS" had been in operation for years with facilities located
around the globe. I read a report that the SOSUS facility in the
Bahamas could track and identify the actual ship by name that was
transiting the Strait of Gibraltar as it exited the Mediterranean Sea
and entered the Atlantic. The project I was involved with was the
pre-deployment testing of a similar type of passive system to a mobile
platform like a ship or submarine. Every ship or sub, even of the same
type and class has a unique noise "signature". A library of recorded
signatures evolved over the years and computers at the shore facilities
and then aboard ships can search the library for the recorded, matching
signature.

It is now standard equipment on most Navy ships and subs and the whole
ground based and ship based system is integrated and operates under a
different name. Tom Clancy sorta blew the whistle on this system when
he referred and described it in "The Hunt for Red October".