[F*O*A*D]

On 4/19/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 5:11 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 4:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 4:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 3:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 2:25 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:



A $3 billion ship...with IPS drives. It ought to be good for a few
laughs in the future.


"The ship took about three years to complete and was perhaps the most
advanced warship of its time."

Oh, that's not the USS Zumwalt. It's the USS Princeton,
commissioned in
1843 and the first US Naval ship to be driven by a propeller
instead of
sails or paddlewheels.

And they call me Mr. Luddite.


The Zumwalt looks as if it would roll over in heavy beam seas, but I'm
sure the design was tank-tested for that. I read that the "tumblehome"
design is supposed to minimize it's radar footprint, but really, a
ship
two thirds the length of a New Jersey class WWII battleship is
going to
be pretty easy to spot at sea, from the air, or from a satellite.



You forget. Oceans are big. A 600+' ship is a speck from the air or
space unless you know exactly where to look for it. It is said that
the radar signature of the Zumwalt is about that of a small sailboat.




Hi-res satellite photos aren't going to mistake a 600' target for a
small sailboat.

Oh, and let's not forget the heat bloom from the ship's power plants...
2 Rolls-Royce Marine Trent-30 gas turbines plus 2 Rolls-Royce RR4500 gas
turbine generator sets. Easily picked up by satellite or even airborne
subhunters. And how about the wakes and ocean turbulence? This is a ship
so large it cannot really hide.

And even if it were sent to assist in a military mission against an
enemy without high tech detection devices, the odds are that enemy has
friendly nations with satellites that will supply it with the necessary
data.


"The new destroyer was designed to operate both in the open ocean and in
shallow, offshore waters. And it incorporates several stealth features,
including: a wave-piercing hull that leaves almost no wake; an exhaust
suppressor to reduce the vessel’s infrared (heat) signature; and an
exterior that slopes inward at a steep angle, creating a radar signature
said to be no larger than a fishing boat’s."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/introducing-the-uss-zumwalt-the-stealth-destroyer-38028566/?no-ist





Leaving almost no wake and reducing the heat signature to make it
"stealthy" implies certain knowledge of everyone else's technology, and
that there is no further development in same. Whatever the Navy does, it
doesn't have a cloaking device and the ship will be visible.

[F*O*A*D]

On 4/19/14, 5:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:52:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/19/14, 4:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 4:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 3:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 2:25 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:



A $3 billion ship...with IPS drives. It ought to be good for a few
laughs in the future.


"The ship took about three years to complete and was perhaps the most
advanced warship of its time."

Oh, that's not the USS Zumwalt. It's the USS Princeton, commissioned in
1843 and the first US Naval ship to be driven by a propeller instead of
sails or paddlewheels.

And they call me Mr. Luddite.


The Zumwalt looks as if it would roll over in heavy beam seas, but I'm
sure the design was tank-tested for that. I read that the "tumblehome"
design is supposed to minimize it's radar footprint, but really, a ship
two thirds the length of a New Jersey class WWII battleship is going to
be pretty easy to spot at sea, from the air, or from a satellite.



You forget. Oceans are big. A 600+' ship is a speck from the air or
space unless you know exactly where to look for it. It is said that
the radar signature of the Zumwalt is about that of a small sailboat.




Hi-res satellite photos aren't going to mistake a 600' target for a
small sailboat.

As with most of our adventures lately, we are only trying to fight 3d
world countries who have RADARs about as sophisticated as the one on
Wayne's trawler.
They do still have access to French Exocets or the Chinese and Soviet
equivalent tho so they can be a threat.




Some of those countries have "friends" who would be delighted to share
intel with their client states. And if we are only trying to fight "3rd
world countries," why do we need a high-tech, 600-foot destroyer?

The ship stinks of technological arrogance. It'll probably run aground
on a reef a few hundred yards offshore. All hands will be saved but this
USS Albatross will sink like a stone.

[F*O*A*D]

On 4/19/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 5:11 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 4:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 4:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 3:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 2:25 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:



A $3 billion ship...with IPS drives. It ought to be good for a few
laughs in the future.


"The ship took about three years to complete and was perhaps the most
advanced warship of its time."

Oh, that's not the USS Zumwalt. It's the USS Princeton,
commissioned in
1843 and the first US Naval ship to be driven by a propeller
instead of
sails or paddlewheels.

And they call me Mr. Luddite.


The Zumwalt looks as if it would roll over in heavy beam seas, but I'm
sure the design was tank-tested for that. I read that the "tumblehome"
design is supposed to minimize it's radar footprint, but really, a
ship
two thirds the length of a New Jersey class WWII battleship is
going to
be pretty easy to spot at sea, from the air, or from a satellite.



You forget. Oceans are big. A 600+' ship is a speck from the air or
space unless you know exactly where to look for it. It is said that
the radar signature of the Zumwalt is about that of a small sailboat.




Hi-res satellite photos aren't going to mistake a 600' target for a
small sailboat.

Oh, and let's not forget the heat bloom from the ship's power plants...
2 Rolls-Royce Marine Trent-30 gas turbines plus 2 Rolls-Royce RR4500 gas
turbine generator sets. Easily picked up by satellite or even airborne
subhunters. And how about the wakes and ocean turbulence? This is a ship
so large it cannot really hide.

And even if it were sent to assist in a military mission against an
enemy without high tech detection devices, the odds are that enemy has
friendly nations with satellites that will supply it with the necessary
data.


"The new destroyer was designed to operate both in the open ocean and in
shallow, offshore waters. And it incorporates several stealth features,
including: a wave-piercing hull that leaves almost no wake; an exhaust
suppressor to reduce the vessel’s infrared (heat) signature; and an
exterior that slopes inward at a steep angle, creating a radar signature
said to be no larger than a fishing boat’s."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/introducing-the-uss-zumwalt-the-stealth-destroyer-38028566/?no-ist





Even funnier, Smithsonian picked up the PR and printed it, and you
believe the PR.

[H*a*r*r*o*l*d]

On 4/19/2014 5:41 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 5:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:52:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/19/14, 4:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 4:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 3:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 2:25 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:



A $3 billion ship...with IPS drives. It ought to be good for a few
laughs in the future.


"The ship took about three years to complete and was perhaps the most
advanced warship of its time."

Oh, that's not the USS Zumwalt. It's the USS Princeton,
commissioned in
1843 and the first US Naval ship to be driven by a propeller
instead of
sails or paddlewheels.

And they call me Mr. Luddite.


The Zumwalt looks as if it would roll over in heavy beam seas, but I'm
sure the design was tank-tested for that. I read that the "tumblehome"
design is supposed to minimize it's radar footprint, but really, a
ship
two thirds the length of a New Jersey class WWII battleship is
going to
be pretty easy to spot at sea, from the air, or from a satellite.



You forget. Oceans are big. A 600+' ship is a speck from the air or
space unless you know exactly where to look for it. It is said that
the radar signature of the Zumwalt is about that of a small sailboat.




Hi-res satellite photos aren't going to mistake a 600' target for a
small sailboat.

As with most of our adventures lately, we are only trying to fight 3d
world countries who have RADARs about as sophisticated as the one on
Wayne's trawler.
They do still have access to French Exocets or the Chinese and Soviet
equivalent tho so they can be a threat.




Some of those countries have "friends" who would be delighted to share
intel with their client states. And if we are only trying to fight "3rd
world countries," why do we need a high-tech, 600-foot destroyer?

The ship stinks of technological arrogance. It'll probably run aground
on a reef a few hundred yards offshore. All hands will be saved but this
USS Albatross will sink like a stone.
Like a low transom Pahkah?

[KC]

On 4/19/2014 4:33 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:02:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The new destroyer
that was commissioned a couple of weeks ago (USS Zumwalt) at over 600'
LOA is the largest destroyer ever built yet is manned with a crew half
the size of the dinky little 315' destroyer escorts that I served on.



And we needed it because...

Our president is committing us to all sorts of foreign adventures.

I want to know about the arms deals that were in the works in Libya
which got an US Ambasador killed.


We will never get to that, it was a Billary thing and anybody who gets
close will shoot himself in the back of the head and move themselves
from a hotel to a park...

[F*O*A*D]

On 4/19/14, 6:11 PM, KC wrote:
On 4/19/2014 4:33 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:02:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The new destroyer
that was commissioned a couple of weeks ago (USS Zumwalt) at over 600'
LOA is the largest destroyer ever built yet is manned with a crew half
the size of the dinky little 315' destroyer escorts that I served on.



And we needed it because...

Our president is committing us to all sorts of foreign adventures.

I want to know about the arms deals that were in the works in Libya
which got an US Ambasador killed.


We will never get to that, it was a Billary thing and anybody who gets
close will shoot himself in the back of the head and move themselves
from a hotel to a park...

Isn't America great? Even morons like Bertie and Scotty can participate
in discussion threads.

[KC]

On 4/19/2014 6:11 PM, KC wrote:
On 4/19/2014 4:33 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:02:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The new destroyer
that was commissioned a couple of weeks ago (USS Zumwalt) at over 600'
LOA is the largest destroyer ever built yet is manned with a crew half
the size of the dinky little 315' destroyer escorts that I served on.



And we needed it because...

Our president is committing us to all sorts of foreign adventures.

I want to know about the arms deals that were in the works in Libya
which got an US Ambasador killed.


We will never get to that, it was a Billary thing and anybody who gets
close will shoot himself in the back of the head and move themselves
from a hotel to a park...

....or fall on a knife

....six times....

[F*O*A*D]

On 4/19/14, 6:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 4/19/2014 6:11 PM, KC wrote:
On 4/19/2014 4:33 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:02:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The new destroyer
that was commissioned a couple of weeks ago (USS Zumwalt) at over
600'
LOA is the largest destroyer ever built yet is manned with a crew
half
the size of the dinky little 315' destroyer escorts that I served on.



And we needed it because...

Our president is committing us to all sorts of foreign adventures.

I want to know about the arms deals that were in the works in Libya
which got an US Ambasador killed.


We will never get to that, it was a Billary thing and anybody who gets
close will shoot himself in the back of the head and move themselves
from a hotel to a park...

...or fall on a knife

...six times....


You should try that and let us know how it works out for you.

[F*O*A*D]

On 4/19/14, 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:29:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Leaving almost no wake and reducing the heat signature to make it
"stealthy" implies certain knowledge of everyone else's technology, and
that there is no further development in same. Whatever the Navy does, it
doesn't have a cloaking device and the ship will be visible.

Perhaps if you actually understood how this ship was armed you would
understand a bit more about the mission. It is a platform for stand
off weapons designed to hit land targets or sea targets, hundreds of
miles away.
It is a whole lot cheaper than putting an aircraft carrier out there
and risking pilots.


Oh, I understand our liking for anonymous warfare fought at a distance.
Perhaps some of our enemies will get their hands on standoff weapons,
too. It doesn't take a lot of technology these days to launch an exocet
like missile 100 miles away from New York City and not care particularly
where in the city it lands.

[Wayne.B]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:11:11 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

And even if it were sent to assist in a military mission against an
enemy without high tech detection devices, the odds are that enemy has
friendly nations with satellites that will supply it with the necessary
data.

===

Satellite imagery is not in "real time" like radar however. The
image has to be downlinked, processed, analyzed and distributed -
typically over half an hour at best. By then the ship is somewhere
else.