On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:33:11 -0400, wrote:

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.

===

I would hazard a guess that the radar on Wayne's trawler is better
than that of some 3rd world countries since it has full MARPA/ARPA
functionality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-au...r_plotting_aid

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:41:56 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

===

Spoken like a true patriot

[NOT].

This country has been good to you Harry. Many others would have
jailed you or worse.

Fortunately I believe there's still hope in that respect.

On 4/19/14, 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:41:51 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

I am not sure why you don't love this weapons system. It was conceived
during the Clinton Administration (1994) when the US foreign policy
was called "Tomahawk Diplomacy".

It was perfect for sitting out in the Arabian Sea and lobbing a few
million dollar missiles into an aspirin factory in Sudan. (looking for
that pesky WMD).
Sorry, Mr security guard, you should have called in sick.



You are a lot more "doctrinaire" than I am, it seems. But of
course...you're a "conservative."

On 4/19/2014 10:06 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:41:56 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

===

Spoken like a true patriot

[NOT].

This country has been good to you Harry. Many others would have
jailed you or worse.

Fortunately I believe there's still hope in that respect.



He's just frustrated.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 22:28:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/19/2014 10:06 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:41:56 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

===

Spoken like a true patriot

[NOT].

This country has been good to you Harry. Many others would have
jailed you or worse.

Fortunately I believe there's still hope in that respect.



He's just frustrated.

===

Why do you think that? I view him more as a gigantic, walking,
talking character flaw.

On 4/19/2014 10:49 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

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.

Again you show your stupidity. You have to be in the right place at the
right time with the right camera and the ability to discern the anomaly
on the ocean and verify it.

We don't have satellites mapping every inch of the oceans at the same
time.



The Google Earth image that I put the 605 foot red line on has to be
zoomed in to a 25 square mile grid in order to see the line. My point
to Harry is you have to have an idea where to look in order to find it.
The Pacific is over 61 million square miles in area. The Atlantic is
over 41 million square miles. If the operators of satellites have an
idea of where to scan and look, they can alter the orbits and might
eventually find it and can then zoom in on it, but without any idea of
where it is, it's like looking for a needle in a haystack ... or worse.

On 4/19/2014 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:41:51 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Oh, I understand our liking for anonymous warfare fought at a distance.

What are you implying harry, cause it seems it's your party that shoots
their weapons and their mouth, from behind a skirt?

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.

Bull****, you couldn't launch it if they gave you the keys and showed
you the red button, then aiming it at any city... well, let's just say
you are full of **** as usual...

I am not sure why you don't love this weapons system. It was conceived
during the Clinton Administration (1994) when the US foreign policy
was called "Tomahawk Diplomacy".

It was perfect for sitting out in the Arabian Sea and lobbing a few
million dollar missiles into an aspirin factory in Sudan. (looking for
that pesky WMD).
Sorry, Mr security guard, you should have called in sick.

On 4/19/2014 10:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:41:51 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

BTW why would you launch an Exocet missile into New York City?
I guess you don't know what an Exocet missile really is. (wave top
hugging, open water weapon)

If someone wanted a couple hundred pound bomb in New York they could
just put it in the trunk of a cab and drive it to exactly where they
wanted it to go off. The Exocet is not going to be that accurate and
it will hit the first building it crosses on land. To be effective
they would need to be in the harbor when they shot it. Even then, it
might decide a big metal subway sign down near the battery was the
most attractive target.


harry was lying, to get you to respond. He makes a ridiculous comment
like the one above based in nothing but his own fantasy world, and he
gets attention. Hell, he doesn't even have to work for it anymore

On 4/19/2014 10:59 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 10:49 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

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.

Again you show your stupidity. You have to be in the right place at the
right time with the right camera and the ability to discern the anomaly
on the ocean and verify it.

We don't have satellites mapping every inch of the oceans at the same
time.



The Google Earth image that I put the 605 foot red line on has to be
zoomed in to a 25 square mile grid in order to see the line. My point
to Harry is you have to have an idea where to look in order to find it.
The Pacific is over 61 million square miles in area. The Atlantic is
over 41 million square miles. If the operators of satellites have an
idea of where to scan and look, they can alter the orbits and might
eventually find it and can then zoom in on it, but without any idea of
where it is, it's like looking for a needle in a haystack ... or worse.



The comment I heard was "it's like searching every inch of the state of
Connecticut... looking through a toilet paper tube". The subs have 2-3
feet of visibility with lights down that deep at best.

On 4/19/2014 10:42 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

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.

I don't ever remember having the US Government sue me for failure to pay
my taxes? In fact, nobody has sued me for anything. Every time you try
and put me down I just think about your inability to take care of your
own business and responsibilities and I have to laugh at you. You are a
joke, a fool and an idiot.

Well said:-)