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 4/19/2014 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, 5:20 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.

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.

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."

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.

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 4/19/14, 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.

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.