On 4/20/2014 10:33 PM, 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?

Funny, we've always been more interested in whether Harry had a wife of
record.

On 4/20/2014 10:50 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"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

This has been your goal; to make it a religion and politics newsgroup.
And you've been successful in sucking some members into discussing your
favorite topics.

On 4/20/2014 11:39 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
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.

It would surprise me if one of those pseudo trawlers had a range greater
than 500 miles. That would put Bermuda out of range for one of those
coastal boats.

On 4/21/14, 6:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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".









The Orioles are wearing a special patch on their uniforms this season to
commemorate the passing of Clancy, who was a part owner of the team.

On 4/21/14, 5:01 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.






Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven Harbor
during the 1960s?

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 07:37:32 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

On 4/20/2014 11:39 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
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.

It would surprise me if one of those pseudo trawlers had a range greater
than 500 miles. That would put Bermuda out of range for one of those
coastal boats.

===

With out stabilization of some type, most pseudo trawlers have
difficulty just making coastal passages on the open ocean. My
youngest son's inlaws have one and I find the ride uncomfortable even
on Long Island Sound when the wind is up.

Bermuda is a nice destination but it's a long way out and a long way
back. I've gone there 6 times on sailboats. In order to make the
next leg of a transatlantic crossing from Bermuda you need a fuel
range of at least 2,000 miles to safely cover the 1,700 miles to the
Azores, preferably a bit more. The only way we can go transatlantic
(other than on a freighter) is via Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland,
etc. That's a dicey crossing even in late summer although it would be
one heck of an adventure. :-)

The biggest advantage for us of having a 1,000+ mile range is the
ability to pick and choose our refueling spots for best price. Even
in the USA there are big differences as you probably know. Going
international the differences are even more extreme.

Very interesting, Wayne. The only concerned we have about fueling is which gas station has the best price to fill up before we hit the ramp at the lake.

On Monday, April 21, 2014 10:11:36 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
Very interesting, Wayne. The only concerned we have about fueling is which gas station has the best price to fill up before we hit the ramp at the lake.

Keeping our boat in a slip takes that opportunity away, so we have to pay the higher marina price for gas. Fortunately, my home marina has one of the best prices on the lake, so that's a plus. It still hurts.

You want to play, you got to pay. :-)

On 4/21/14, 11:33 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 05:01:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/20/2014 11:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote:

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.




The names of weapons systems are political as much as military.

When the German army started building the Sturmgewehr it was
designated the MP44 (Machine Pistol 44) because Hitler said they did
not need a better rifle. He wanted an improved sub machine gun.

Maybe "cruiser" sounded too gay ;-)



Well, we all know The Village People had the Navy tagged.

On 4/21/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:03:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven Harbor
during the 1960s?

I remember the USS Drum that kept the godless communists away from the
Washington Navy Yard (called the gun factory at the time)

After that sailed away the mission was left to the USCGR unit next to
the Wilson Bridge ;-)



I was a high schooler in New Haven when the Coates was assigned there
as, if memory serves, a training vessel. We encountered it from time to
time in the really small boats we used to play, fish, waterski, et
cetera, on Long Island Sound. Mostly, though, the Coates was docked.

Just looked it up...it was used as a target vessel and sunk in the early
1970s.