On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 07:25:47 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:

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.

Isn't that the truth - sucking members into his discussions. Unreal.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:38:06 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:48:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?


I *knew* you were going to say that.




Why didn't you?

Maybe he sees it as more of a political statement than racial (like I
do) and as you have demonstrated here, almost every day, that you can
say the most offensive and hateful things you want about anyone you
disagree with politically.

But folks seem to hang on his every word.

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.

That's not the union way...

On 4/21/14, 5:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2014 5:44 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:48:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?


I *knew* you were going to say that.




Why didn't you?

Maybe he sees it as more of a political statement than racial (like I
do) and as you have demonstrated here, almost every day, that you can
say the most offensive and hateful things you want about anyone you
disagree with politically.


I don’t use derogatory terms to insult people over those areas of their
being in which they had no choice, such as their race, their ethnicity,
their gender, their country of origin, et cetera.

If you are an uninformed, science-denying, ignorant, superstitious,
religious fundamentalist, racist conservative, you are that way because
of choices you have made, not because you were born that way.

"Gook" is a derogatory term ignorant people have used for generations to
describe Asians, not the politics of Asians.

Most prominently though during the Vietnam years by those trying to stay
alive in the jungles. I could understand it then, under those
circumstances but it's justification for use has long ended.




I wasn't aware that Greg's tour of duty with the US Coast Guard included
time spent trying to stay alive in the jungles of SE Asia.

On 4/21/14, 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:44:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:48:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?


I *knew* you were going to say that.




Why didn't you?

Maybe he sees it as more of a political statement than racial (like I
do) and as you have demonstrated here, almost every day, that you can
say the most offensive and hateful things you want about anyone you
disagree with politically.


I don’t use derogatory terms to insult people over those areas of their
being in which they had no choice, such as their race, their ethnicity,
their gender, their country of origin, et cetera.

If you are an uninformed, science-denying, ignorant, superstitious,
religious fundamentalist, racist conservative, you are that way because
of choices you have made, not because you were born that way.

"Gook" is a derogatory term ignorant people have used for generations to
describe Asians, not the politics of Asians.

I may have just done it to pull your string and that certainly worked.

I know your sympathies always rested with the Viet cong, not the GIs
and tweaking that was rewarding..


I doubt that you used that word to pull my string, but nice attempt at
recovery.

If you think my "sympathies" were with the Viet Cong, you are far less
bright than I thought. I certainly understand their point of view,
though...they were ****ed over by the French, then the Japanese, then
the French again, and then the Americans and the American allies, who
backed the dictator Diem, who reneged on a deal struck earlier to
reunite Vietnam. Once Diem was gotten rid of, a string of
American-backed thugs took over ruling South Vietnam until all of that
collapsed.

We certainly learned our lessons there and put them to use in Iran and
Iraq, eh?

On 4/21/14, 8:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 19:39:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:44:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

I may have just done it to pull your string and that certainly worked.

I know your sympathies always rested with the Viet cong, not the GIs
and tweaking that was rewarding..


I doubt that you used that word to pull my string, but nice attempt at
recovery.


I certainly knew you would be the only one who was offended enough to
bitch about it.


If you think my "sympathies" were with the Viet Cong, you are far less
bright than I thought.

... he says

I certainly understand their point of view,
though...they were ****ed over by the French, then the Japanese, then
the French again, and then the Americans and the American allies, who
backed the dictator Diem, who reneged on a deal struck earlier to
reunite Vietnam. Once Diem was gotten rid of, a string of
American-backed thugs took over ruling South Vietnam until all of that
collapsed.


And then he told us how it was all our fault
Ah Harry, you are so predictable.
I bet you would have been there with Jane on the gun if she asked you.
(while Americans were being tortured a mile away)

No I was not in the jungle but I spent a lot of guys who were and I
knew one guy who died there.

We certainly learned our lessons there and put them to use in Iran and
Iraq, eh?

I am not really sure how any of that has anything to do with Iraq. Our
current policy in Afghanistan is closer but still not nearly the same.


What happened after the French left, in terms of our war against
Vietnam, was our fault.

No, I wouldn't have accompanied Jane Fonda on her trip there.

A lot of people in our general age category know people who died in
Vietnam, or who suffered horrific physical and mental injuries. And all
of those deaths and injuries were a waste.

I don't know why we are in Afghanistan. It wasn't a real country before
we got there and it won't be after we leave. It's too bad Moron Bush and
his henchman Chaney got us into it, eh?