About Us

Califbill

"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.

Just look how hard it has been to find the Malaysian airline. And they can
limit that search to a 100000 sq mile area.

Califbill

F*O*A*D wrote:
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."

Sounds, looks like, Clinton in the Balkans.

F*O*A*D

On 4/22/14, 1:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
"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.

Just look how hard it has been to find the Malaysian airline. And they can
limit that search to a 100000 sq mile area.

Especially with that airplane painted red and floating on the surface as
it is, right Bill?

Califbill

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/22/14, 1:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
"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.

Just look how hard it has been to find the Malaysian airline. And they can
limit that search to a 100000 sq mile area.

Especially with that airplane painted red and floating on the surface as
it is, right Bill?

Be lots of debris! Floating!

F*O*A*D

On 4/22/14, 5:15 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/22/14, 1:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
"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.

Just look how hard it has been to find the Malaysian airline. And they can
limit that search to a 100000 sq mile area.

Especially with that airplane painted red and floating on the surface as
it is, right Bill?

Be lots of debris! Floating!

Not necessarily.

F*O*A*D

On 4/22/14, 4:55 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:24:58 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Just look how hard it has been to find the Malaysian airline. And they can
limit that search to a 100000 sq mile area.

Especially with that airplane painted red and floating on the surface as
it is, right Bill?

I suppose it is possible that they got a tip from a navy source "over
the transom" that makes them so certain they are looking in the right
place but if this current search doesn't pan out, they will just be
easter egging around a very big ocean, trying to get lucky.

Our best chance of finding that plane is to have a russian sub go down
near by, then a "manganese nodule" mining ship might stumble upon it.

Surely there is a way to equip commericial planes with some sort of
external EPIRB device that would pop loose if the plane hits the water
and at least signal a general location that could be found via signals
and traced.

Boating All Out

In article ,
says...

They had a typhoon in that area shortly after the plane landed so
anything in the water was in a 15 hour blender and this is pretty
rough water anyway.
There is likely to be some debris washing up somewhere but it will be
meaningless in trying to identify the crash site.

If you can believe the wall to wall coverage on CNN, the satellite
data from the engine pings is the only real clue they have and that is
far from precise.
The fact that they did suddenly pick a spot and concentrate on it as
much as they have makes me believe they got a tip from some classified
source that people trust.

I am wondering if we had a sub around there somewhere that heard the
plane crash into the water and they don't want to admit it.
If Tom Clancy is even close to right, a sub can hear a fish fart 100
miles away.

Unitil they find debris they have nothing.
Unless the plane made a soft landing something will show up.
If it broke up there will be debris regardless of sea state.
Plenty of carry-on luggage will float.
It's puzzling they have not found debris, with all the searching they've
done.
Either the plane made a soft landing, or they're looking in the wrong
place, or both.
Shame for the families. Their loved ones snatched away.

Mr. Luddite

On 4/22/2014 5:44 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/22/14, 4:55 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:24:58 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Just look how hard it has been to find the Malaysian airline. And
they can
limit that search to a 100000 sq mile area.

Especially with that airplane painted red and floating on the surface as
it is, right Bill?

I suppose it is possible that they got a tip from a navy source "over
the transom" that makes them so certain they are looking in the right
place but if this current search doesn't pan out, they will just be
easter egging around a very big ocean, trying to get lucky.

Our best chance of finding that plane is to have a russian sub go down
near by, then a "manganese nodule" mining ship might stumble upon it.

Surely there is a way to equip commericial planes with some sort of
external EPIRB device that would pop loose if the plane hits the water
and at least signal a general location that could be found via signals
and traced.

No question the "black box" thing is pretty old fashioned in this day
and age. Your EPIRB idea would be an improvement but lacks the recorded
voice, instrumentation and flight data that helps determine the cause of
the crash. It seems like in this day and age of high bandwidth
communications via satellites a system that transmits the data from the
aircraft in flight to a remote storage file might also be feasible. The
thing is, crashes are so rare and usually the black box is found much
more easily, so there has been no major impetus to improve the data
collection system.

Mr. Luddite

On 4/22/2014 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:15:13 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

They had a typhoon in that area shortly after the plane landed so
anything in the water was in a 15 hour blender and this is pretty
rough water anyway.
There is likely to be some debris washing up somewhere but it will be
meaningless in trying to identify the crash site.

If you can believe the wall to wall coverage on CNN, the satellite
data from the engine pings is the only real clue they have and that is
far from precise.
The fact that they did suddenly pick a spot and concentrate on it as
much as they have makes me believe they got a tip from some classified
source that people trust.

I am wondering if we had a sub around there somewhere that heard the
plane crash into the water and they don't want to admit it.
If Tom Clancy is even close to right, a sub can hear a fish fart 100
miles away.

Unitil they find debris they have nothing.
Unless the plane made a soft landing something will show up.
If it broke up there will be debris regardless of sea state.
Plenty of carry-on luggage will float.
It's puzzling they have not found debris, with all the searching they've
done.
Either the plane made a soft landing, or they're looking in the wrong
place, or both.
Shame for the families. Their loved ones snatched away.

It has been so long that finding debris would only confirm that the
plane landed in the water. There is still a remote possibility that it
is wadded up on the side of a mountain but then the question of why we
didn't hear an ELT becomes more valid.

The most likely scenario is it hit the water hard and went down before
the ELTs actually got going.

There is so much trash in the ocean that it might be easy to overlook
debris.

What's an "ELT"?

The big question in this tragedy is what caused the flight transponder
and apparently *all* means of communications to be cut off? There are
backups to backups on aircraft like this, designed to operate if there
is a failure in the electrical supply system in any part of the aircraft.

There must be a reason but it's hard to understand how *all* power and
means of communications was suddenly and permanently lost yet the
aircraft apparently continued to fly for several hours. The sudden
decompression theory and crew and passenger unconsciousness could
explain why voice communications was lost but it doesn't explain the
transponder. Just doesn't make any sense.

Mr. Luddite

On 4/22/2014 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:26:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/22/2014 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:15:13 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

It has been so long that finding debris would only confirm that the
plane landed in the water. There is still a remote possibility that it
is wadded up on the side of a mountain but then the question of why we
didn't hear an ELT becomes more valid.

The most likely scenario is it hit the water hard and went down before
the ELTs actually got going.

There is so much trash in the ocean that it might be easy to overlook
debris.

What's an "ELT"?

Emergency locator transmitter Basically like an EPIRB. There is one on
every door with a slide and one in the tail according to CNN's 777
geek.

The big question in this tragedy is what caused the flight transponder
and apparently *all* means of communications to be cut off? There are
backups to backups on aircraft like this, designed to operate if there
is a failure in the electrical supply system in any part of the aircraft.

That is why they say this was a conscious effort by someone
knowledgable enough to know how to turn these things off.

There must be a reason but it's hard to understand how *all* power and
means of communications was suddenly and permanently lost yet the
aircraft apparently continued to fly for several hours. The sudden
decompression theory and crew and passenger unconsciousness could
explain why voice communications was lost but it doesn't explain the
transponder. Just doesn't make any sense.

I agree, unless it was a deliberate criminal act.
Someone wanted this plane to disappear without a trace and they seemed
to do a damned good job of it.

The kid who landed in Hawaii seems to fly in the face of the idea that
everyone in a depressurized cabin would have died.
They had a guy on CNN with the statistic that of over 120 people who
stowed away in a wheel well on an airliner about 20% made it.
Some who didn't simply fell out when the bay door opened.

The FDR is really the only thing that might shed some light on this,
if they ever find it. The CVR will have overwritten the first 4+ hours
of the flight.
If someone actually got into the equipment bay and cut power to all of
that stuff, we know it was a criminal act.

It dawned on me what ELT meant after I hit send. I was just reading up
on them though:

In the USA the FAA requires them in international commercial flights as
does several other nations, but not all. There's a question regarding
the ELT(s) that were on the Malaysian 777. It was delivered from Boeing
with four of them in 2002 but they were of the older type (different
frequency) and were not GPS capable. They relied on at least two
satellite passes, using the Doppler effect to determine location. The
newer, current ELT transmit on another freq and are GPS capable for
location determination. Apparently there are no records available at
Malaysian Air as to whether the original ELTs were ever updated ... or
even maintained. The airlines has refused to answer any questions about
them. They could have been the originals that are now 12 years old and
may not have even been functional.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Not this time of year	Rob	General	0	November 29th 09 12:48 AM
359# Warsaw Grouper!	D K[_15_]	General	22	July 1st 09 01:17 AM
That time of year again	Mundo	ASA	2	March 19th 07 04:34 AM
That time of year again!	Don White	General	87	February 18th 06 11:49 PM
O.T. It's that time of year	RGrew176	General	0	March 30th 04 01:08 AM

Menu

About Us