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.

On 4/19/14, 4:15 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:35:52 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The Pentagon dreams up ways to keep boys in uniform, officer billets
filled, and defense contractors happy.

Congress does that
DoD is the country's biggest jobs program. It is something that is
pretty much all "buy American".

When we build bridges, high speed trains or other projects, there is
always a high input of off shore product in the mix.


Ahh, but there shouldn't be.

On 4/19/14, 4:17 PM, wrote:
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.



And those involve a pseudo-stealth destroyer to do what, exactly?

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.

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.

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.

On 4/19/14, 4:15 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:35:52 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The Pentagon dreams up ways to keep boys in uniform, officer billets
filled, and defense contractors happy.

Congress does that
DoD is the country's biggest jobs program. It is something that is
pretty much all "buy American".

When we build bridges, high speed trains or other projects, there is
always a high input of off shore product in the mix.



The USS Zumwalt, which we are discussing here, has four Rolls-Royce gas
turbine engines for propulsion and generation of electricity. *Not*
pretty much all "buy American." It's not so easy to find out where the
steel for the hull and superstructure was fabricated. Won't it be
interesting if we bought that "offshore," too?

On 4/19/2014 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.

Agreed. *If* they know where to look. The optics in satellites won't
resolve a 600' ship if they are looking at hundreds of square miles of
ocean.

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

On 4/19/14, 5:16 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 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.

Agreed. *If* they know where to look. The optics in satellites won't
resolve a 600' ship if they are looking at hundreds of square miles of
ocean.



The heat blooms from the ship's four Rolls-Royce turbines will show on
satellite infrared, and the wakes and turbulence will be easy to spot,
too, especially with intelligent search and tracking. The reality is,
this ship is too big to hide itself at sea, and the kazillions spent on
making it "radar invisible" (which it isn't) was a waste of dollars.