Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

The Pentagon is exploring options for deploying U.S. troops to Poland to
expand NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe because of the ongoing crisis
in Ukraine, as pro-Russian militants defiantly refused Friday to leave
government buildings in eastern Ukraine despite a diplomatic accord
reached in Geneva.

A senior U.S. official told Fox News on Friday the U.S. is considering
sending relatively small units to the country of around 130 soldiers,
and the units would be there on a rotational basis.

- - - -

Gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do, eh?

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

On 4/19/2014 7:44 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
The Pentagon is exploring options for deploying U.S. troops to Poland to
expand NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe because of the ongoing crisis
in Ukraine, as pro-Russian militants defiantly refused Friday to leave
government buildings in eastern Ukraine despite a diplomatic accord
reached in Geneva.

A senior U.S. official told Fox News on Friday the U.S. is considering
sending relatively small units to the country of around 130 soldiers,
and the units would be there on a rotational basis.

- - - -

Gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do, eh?


The Pentagon constantly explores and develops options for virtually
every situation and contingency that may occur due to Geo-political events.

The Commander in Chief decides if any of the options are actually
implemented.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

On Saturday

Gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do, eh?

Send them to the Netherlanders and they can count tulips. According to john's recent trip it is lovely there this time of year.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

On 4/19/14, 8:03 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 7:44 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
The Pentagon is exploring options for deploying U.S. troops to Poland to
expand NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe because of the ongoing crisis
in Ukraine, as pro-Russian militants defiantly refused Friday to leave
government buildings in eastern Ukraine despite a diplomatic accord
reached in Geneva.

A senior U.S. official told Fox News on Friday the U.S. is considering
sending relatively small units to the country of around 130 soldiers,
and the units would be there on a rotational basis.

- - - -

Gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do, eh?


The Pentagon constantly explores and develops options for virtually
every situation and contingency that may occur due to Geo-political events.

The Commander in Chief decides if any of the options are actually
implemented.



As I said, gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do. If most
of them are just sitting around, Americans might wonder why we have so
many.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

On 4/19/14, 8:42 AM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday

Gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do, eh?

Send them to the Netherlanders and they can count tulips. According to john's recent trip it is lovely there this time of year.


Seems perfectly reasonable, and better than getting shot at...

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

On 4/19/2014 9:26 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 8:03 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 7:44 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
The Pentagon is exploring options for deploying U.S. troops to Poland to
expand NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe because of the ongoing crisis
in Ukraine, as pro-Russian militants defiantly refused Friday to leave
government buildings in eastern Ukraine despite a diplomatic accord
reached in Geneva.

A senior U.S. official told Fox News on Friday the U.S. is considering
sending relatively small units to the country of around 130 soldiers,
and the units would be there on a rotational basis.

- - - -

Gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do, eh?


The Pentagon constantly explores and develops options for virtually
every situation and contingency that may occur due to Geo-political
events.

The Commander in Chief decides if any of the options are actually
implemented.



As I said, gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do. If most
of them are just sitting around, Americans might wonder why we have so
many.


There's probably a Pentagon developed military option for an invasion of
Martians. Doesn't mean it will ever be exercised. The Pentagon doesn't
sit around dreaming up things for the military to do. They dream up
response options if the military is needed.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

On 4/19/14, 12:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 9:26 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 8:03 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 7:44 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
The Pentagon is exploring options for deploying U.S. troops to
Poland to
expand NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe because of the ongoing crisis
in Ukraine, as pro-Russian militants defiantly refused Friday to leave
government buildings in eastern Ukraine despite a diplomatic accord
reached in Geneva.

A senior U.S. official told Fox News on Friday the U.S. is considering
sending relatively small units to the country of around 130 soldiers,
and the units would be there on a rotational basis.

- - - -

Gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do, eh?


The Pentagon constantly explores and develops options for virtually
every situation and contingency that may occur due to Geo-political
events.

The Commander in Chief decides if any of the options are actually
implemented.



As I said, gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do. If most
of them are just sitting around, Americans might wonder why we have so
many.


There's probably a Pentagon developed military option for an invasion of
Martians. Doesn't mean it will ever be exercised. The Pentagon doesn't
sit around dreaming up things for the military to do. They dream up
response options if the military is needed.




Your concept of "the military" is so mid-20th century. As the economy
improves, military spending should be cut back gradually until it is
maybe a third of what it is now. We aren't going to be fighting the
Russians or the Chinese, we're going to be engaged in skirmishes or in
peacekeeping mission. Well, unless a Republican gets into the Oval
Office...then we'll be invading countries anew.

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

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

On 4/19/2014 12:35 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 12:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 9:26 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 8:03 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 7:44 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
The Pentagon is exploring options for deploying U.S. troops to
Poland to
expand NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe because of the ongoing crisis
in Ukraine, as pro-Russian militants defiantly refused Friday to leave
government buildings in eastern Ukraine despite a diplomatic accord
reached in Geneva.

A senior U.S. official told Fox News on Friday the U.S. is considering
sending relatively small units to the country of around 130 soldiers,
and the units would be there on a rotational basis.

- - - -

Gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do, eh?


The Pentagon constantly explores and develops options for virtually
every situation and contingency that may occur due to Geo-political
events.

The Commander in Chief decides if any of the options are actually
implemented.



As I said, gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do. If most
of them are just sitting around, Americans might wonder why we have so
many.


There's probably a Pentagon developed military option for an invasion of
Martians. Doesn't mean it will ever be exercised. The Pentagon doesn't
sit around dreaming up things for the military to do. They dream up
response options if the military is needed.




Your concept of "the military" is so mid-20th century. As the economy
improves, military spending should be cut back gradually until it is
maybe a third of what it is now. We aren't going to be fighting the
Russians or the Chinese, we're going to be engaged in skirmishes or in
peacekeeping mission. Well, unless a Republican gets into the Oval
Office...then we'll be invading countries anew.

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

Your qualifications as a military strategist are what, Mr. English major?

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

On 4/19/2014 1:24 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

On 4/19/14, 12:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 9:26 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 8:03 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 7:44 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
The Pentagon is exploring options for deploying U.S. troops to
Poland to
expand NATO?s presence in Eastern Europe because of the ongoing crisis
in Ukraine, as pro-Russian militants defiantly refused Friday to leave
government buildings in eastern Ukraine despite a diplomatic accord
reached in Geneva.

A senior U.S. official told Fox News on Friday the U.S. is considering
sending relatively small units to the country of around 130 soldiers,
and the units would be there on a rotational basis.

- - - -

Gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do, eh?


The Pentagon constantly explores and develops options for virtually
every situation and contingency that may occur due to Geo-political
events.

The Commander in Chief decides if any of the options are actually
implemented.



As I said, gotta find something for our boys in uniform to do. If most
of them are just sitting around, Americans might wonder why we have so
many.


There's probably a Pentagon developed military option for an invasion of
Martians. Doesn't mean it will ever be exercised. The Pentagon doesn't
sit around dreaming up things for the military to do. They dream up
response options if the military is needed.




Your concept of "the military" is so mid-20th century. As the economy
improves, military spending should be cut back gradually until it is
maybe a third of what it is now. We aren't going to be fighting the
Russians or the Chinese, we're going to be engaged in skirmishes or in
peacekeeping mission. Well, unless a Republican gets into the Oval
Office...then we'll be invading countries anew.

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

Your view of diplomacy is warped and not unexpected from a guy like you.

Perfect. That's exactly how everyone should respond to that turd. Why
should we bother to respond to his stupidity with logic and reason?

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:29:41 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

Your concept of "the military" is so mid-20th century. As the economy
improves, military spending should be cut back gradually until it is
maybe a third of what it is now. We aren't going to be fighting the
Russians or the Chinese, we're going to be engaged in skirmishes or in
peacekeeping mission. Well, unless a Republican gets into the Oval
Office...then we'll be invading countries anew.

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

Your view of diplomacy is warped and not unexpected from a guy like you.

Perfect. That's exactly how everyone should respond to that turd. Why
should we bother to respond to his stupidity with logic and reason?

===

No reason at all unless you like mud wrestling with pigs.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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?

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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?

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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?

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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...

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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....:)

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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."

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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 anymo)

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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.

Warsaw is lovely this time of year...
 

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:-)