Here's a game for you Harry.

It's a "hi res" Google satellite image of the 61 million square miles
of the Pacific Ocean.

I zoomed in close enough to draw a fairly wide, bright red line that is
605 feet long (all to scale) and saved it on the image. I then zoomed
back out to capture the full Pacific again and took a screen capture of it.

You mission, should you chose to accept it, is to find the red line.
You can save the picture and zoom away. It's there, guarantee it.
I know where it is, so I can zoom in and easily find it.

Can you?

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ch/Pacific.jpg

On 4/19/14, 10:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Here's a game for you Harry.

It's a "hi res" Google satellite image of the 61 million square miles
of the Pacific Ocean.

I zoomed in close enough to draw a fairly wide, bright red line that is
605 feet long (all to scale) and saved it on the image. I then zoomed
back out to capture the full Pacific again and took a screen capture of it.

You mission, should you chose to accept it, is to find the red line.
You can save the picture and zoom away. It's there, guarantee it.
I know where it is, so I can zoom in and easily find it.

Can you?

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ch/Pacific.jpg



I don't know...can I?

The photo is hardly "hi res."

There are aspects to locating this ship you haven't really considered.

It's a large ship, and it is powered by fossil fuel. A lot of fossil
fuel. Refueling these ships at sea is a very risky business, though it
can be done. It is going to have to make port for fuel, for supplies,
and sometimes for maintenance. The number of places you can "park" a
600-foot warship are limited. The ship will be seen arriving and
departing. Ports of call many times are announced. Once its location is
known, it can be tracked by the usual methods, including by submarine
and by aircraft and by satellite. The Navy's PR department says the
powerplant heat bloom is minimized, as is the ship's wake and
disturbance on the ocean surface. Maybe not as well as the Navy would
like, eh? Military PR is the very definition of self-serving.

Now, of course, very few if any of the third world countries we make war
on have the assets to do this. But some of those countries have sponsors
or are client states of major countries that do have modern ships,
planes, submarines, satellites. It doesn't take much effort to
"communicate" the location of an enemy's assets. I'm confident the
Russians would not be displeased if some ******** of a country sucking
on Moscow's teat managed to put a hole through the hull of the Zumwalt.

On another note, isn't it wonderful that I pose these "provocative"
issues here? It gives the boys something to discuss besides Herring's
tiptoeing through the tulips, Tim's Remembrance of Posts Past*, W'hine's
telling us just how big and fancy his boat is, Bert's regurgitation of
his fondness for John Birch Society bull****,
Ingersoll's schizophrenia, CalifBill's own brand of right-wing insanity,
FlaJim's junior high school insults, and so forth and so on.

As always, have nice day!


* Full apologies to Marcel Proust and his À la recherche du temps perdu...

On 4/20/2014 8:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 10:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Here's a game for you Harry.

It's a "hi res" Google satellite image of the 61 million square miles
of the Pacific Ocean.

I zoomed in close enough to draw a fairly wide, bright red line that is
605 feet long (all to scale) and saved it on the image. I then zoomed
back out to capture the full Pacific again and took a screen capture
of it.

You mission, should you chose to accept it, is to find the red line.
You can save the picture and zoom away. It's there, guarantee it.
I know where it is, so I can zoom in and easily find it.

Can you?

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ch/Pacific.jpg



I don't know...can I?

The photo is hardly "hi res."

There are aspects to locating this ship you haven't really considered.

It's a large ship, and it is powered by fossil fuel. A lot of fossil
fuel. Refueling these ships at sea is a very risky business, though it
can be done. It is going to have to make port for fuel, for supplies,
and sometimes for maintenance. The number of places you can "park" a
600-foot warship are limited. The ship will be seen arriving and
departing. Ports of call many times are announced. Once its location is
known, it can be tracked by the usual methods, including by submarine
and by aircraft and by satellite. The Navy's PR department says the
powerplant heat bloom is minimized, as is the ship's wake and
disturbance on the ocean surface. Maybe not as well as the Navy would
like, eh? Military PR is the very definition of self-serving.

Now, of course, very few if any of the third world countries we make war
on have the assets to do this. But some of those countries have sponsors
or are client states of major countries that do have modern ships,
planes, submarines, satellites. It doesn't take much effort to
"communicate" the location of an enemy's assets. I'm confident the
Russians would not be displeased if some ******** of a country sucking
on Moscow's teat managed to put a hole through the hull of the Zumwalt.

On another note, isn't it wonderful that I pose these "provocative"
issues here? It gives the boys something to discuss besides Herring's
tiptoeing through the tulips, Tim's Remembrance of Posts Past*, W'hine's
telling us just how big and fancy his boat is, Bert's regurgitation of
his fondness for John Birch Society bull****,
Ingersoll's schizophrenia, CalifBill's own brand of right-wing insanity,
FlaJim's junior high school insults, and so forth and so on.

As always, have nice day!


* Full apologies to Marcel Proust and his À la recherche du temps perdu...

Your issues are about as provocative as a dog lifting his leg to pee.

On 4/20/2014 9:03 AM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 4/20/2014 8:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 10:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Here's a game for you Harry.

It's a "hi res" Google satellite image of the 61 million square miles
of the Pacific Ocean.

I zoomed in close enough to draw a fairly wide, bright red line that is
605 feet long (all to scale) and saved it on the image. I then zoomed
back out to capture the full Pacific again and took a screen capture
of it.

You mission, should you chose to accept it, is to find the red line.
You can save the picture and zoom away. It's there, guarantee it.
I know where it is, so I can zoom in and easily find it.

Can you?

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ch/Pacific.jpg



I don't know...can I?

The photo is hardly "hi res."

There are aspects to locating this ship you haven't really considered.

It's a large ship, and it is powered by fossil fuel. A lot of fossil
fuel. Refueling these ships at sea is a very risky business, though it
can be done. It is going to have to make port for fuel, for supplies,
and sometimes for maintenance. The number of places you can "park" a
600-foot warship are limited. The ship will be seen arriving and
departing. Ports of call many times are announced. Once its location is
known, it can be tracked by the usual methods, including by submarine
and by aircraft and by satellite. The Navy's PR department says the
powerplant heat bloom is minimized, as is the ship's wake and
disturbance on the ocean surface. Maybe not as well as the Navy would
like, eh? Military PR is the very definition of self-serving.

Now, of course, very few if any of the third world countries we make war
on have the assets to do this. But some of those countries have sponsors
or are client states of major countries that do have modern ships,
planes, submarines, satellites. It doesn't take much effort to
"communicate" the location of an enemy's assets. I'm confident the
Russians would not be displeased if some ******** of a country sucking
on Moscow's teat managed to put a hole through the hull of the Zumwalt.

On another note, isn't it wonderful that I pose these "provocative"
issues here? It gives the boys something to discuss besides Herring's
tiptoeing through the tulips, Tim's Remembrance of Posts Past*, W'hine's
telling us just how big and fancy his boat is, Bert's regurgitation of
his fondness for John Birch Society bull****,
Ingersoll's schizophrenia, CalifBill's own brand of right-wing insanity,
FlaJim's junior high school insults, and so forth and so on.

As always, have nice day!


* Full apologies to Marcel Proust and his À la recherche du temps
perdu...

Your issues are about as provocative as a dog lifting his leg to pee.


He also hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Navy ships have been
refueling at sea every day since they ran on coal or bunker oil. Since
the mid 1970's the newer frigates and DLGs are powered with gas turbines
which are also refueled at sea on a regular basis. "Oilers" aren't
Oilers anymore.

In today's Navy the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers
perform the roles of several former ship classes including destroyers
and cruisers. The expensive to build cruiser class ship has gone the
way of the WWII battleship. The DLGs have more firepower, are armored
(including kelvar), have Aegis Combat Systems and sophisticated,
Electronic Countermeasure Systems that are constantly being improved
upon. They have become the backbone of US Navy warships along with
carriers and submarines. They are efficient, fast and cheaper to build
and maintain.

The USS Zumwald is just another potential step in the evolution of
destroyer technology and capabilities. It may or may not become the
"go-to" design of the future but in order to determine that, designs,
CAD drawings and schematics have to be turned into hardware for testing.

But, back to the ancient Navy ... the one we were in ... here's what
being on a destroyer was like back when I was on a couple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih7ygOUz_Wg

On 4/20/14, 9:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 9:03 AM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 4/20/2014 8:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 10:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Here's a game for you Harry.

It's a "hi res" Google satellite image of the 61 million square miles
of the Pacific Ocean.

I zoomed in close enough to draw a fairly wide, bright red line that is
605 feet long (all to scale) and saved it on the image. I then
zoomed
back out to capture the full Pacific again and took a screen capture
of it.

You mission, should you chose to accept it, is to find the red line.
You can save the picture and zoom away. It's there, guarantee it.
I know where it is, so I can zoom in and easily find it.

Can you?

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ch/Pacific.jpg



I don't know...can I?

The photo is hardly "hi res."

There are aspects to locating this ship you haven't really considered.

It's a large ship, and it is powered by fossil fuel. A lot of fossil
fuel. Refueling these ships at sea is a very risky business, though it
can be done. It is going to have to make port for fuel, for supplies,
and sometimes for maintenance. The number of places you can "park" a
600-foot warship are limited. The ship will be seen arriving and
departing. Ports of call many times are announced. Once its location is
known, it can be tracked by the usual methods, including by submarine
and by aircraft and by satellite. The Navy's PR department says the
powerplant heat bloom is minimized, as is the ship's wake and
disturbance on the ocean surface. Maybe not as well as the Navy would
like, eh? Military PR is the very definition of self-serving.

Now, of course, very few if any of the third world countries we make war
on have the assets to do this. But some of those countries have sponsors
or are client states of major countries that do have modern ships,
planes, submarines, satellites. It doesn't take much effort to
"communicate" the location of an enemy's assets. I'm confident the
Russians would not be displeased if some ******** of a country sucking
on Moscow's teat managed to put a hole through the hull of the Zumwalt.

On another note, isn't it wonderful that I pose these "provocative"
issues here? It gives the boys something to discuss besides Herring's
tiptoeing through the tulips, Tim's Remembrance of Posts Past*, W'hine's
telling us just how big and fancy his boat is, Bert's regurgitation of
his fondness for John Birch Society bull****,
Ingersoll's schizophrenia, CalifBill's own brand of right-wing insanity,
FlaJim's junior high school insults, and so forth and so on.

As always, have nice day!


* Full apologies to Marcel Proust and his À la recherche du temps
perdu...

Your issues are about as provocative as a dog lifting his leg to pee.


He also hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Navy ships have been
refueling at sea every day since they ran on coal or bunker oil. Since
the mid 1970's the newer frigates and DLGs are powered with gas turbines
which are also refueled at sea on a regular basis. "Oilers" aren't
Oilers anymore.

In today's Navy the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers
perform the roles of several former ship classes including destroyers
and cruisers. The expensive to build cruiser class ship has gone the
way of the WWII battleship. The DLGs have more firepower, are armored
(including kelvar), have Aegis Combat Systems and sophisticated,
Electronic Countermeasure Systems that are constantly being improved
upon. They have become the backbone of US Navy warships along with
carriers and submarines. They are efficient, fast and cheaper to build
and maintain.

The USS Zumwald is just another potential step in the evolution of
destroyer technology and capabilities. It may or may not become the
"go-to" design of the future but in order to determine that, designs,
CAD drawings and schematics have to be turned into hardware for testing.

But, back to the ancient Navy ... the one we were in ... here's what
being on a destroyer was like back when I was on a couple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih7ygOUz_Wg




Thanks for the Navy PR and for missing the point.

The point wasn't that the ship had to make port to refuel. Refueling was
just an example. The point was that the ship had to make port for any
number of reasons, and that when it did, it would be impossible for the
ship to be "stealthy" because its presence would be known and could be
communicated, and it could be watched while in port and when leaving
port. It's not difficult watching nuclear submarines making and leaving
port, and they are a hell of a lot stealthier than the Zumwalt, and even
they can be tracked.

Any large warship at sea can be found and damaged or sunk. You can't
hide a military surface ship two football fields long at sea. The
Zumwalt is only 200 feet shorter than the Bismarck, and it was spotted
and sunk.

Perhaps the Navy can waste a hundred billion more dollars and come up
with a cloaking device.

On 4/20/2014 10:03 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 9:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 9:03 AM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 4/20/2014 8:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 10:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Here's a game for you Harry.

It's a "hi res" Google satellite image of the 61 million square miles
of the Pacific Ocean.

I zoomed in close enough to draw a fairly wide, bright red line
that is
605 feet long (all to scale) and saved it on the image. I then
zoomed
back out to capture the full Pacific again and took a screen capture
of it.

You mission, should you chose to accept it, is to find the red line.
You can save the picture and zoom away. It's there, guarantee it.
I know where it is, so I can zoom in and easily find it.

Can you?

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ch/Pacific.jpg



I don't know...can I?

The photo is hardly "hi res."

There are aspects to locating this ship you haven't really considered.

It's a large ship, and it is powered by fossil fuel. A lot of fossil
fuel. Refueling these ships at sea is a very risky business, though it
can be done. It is going to have to make port for fuel, for supplies,
and sometimes for maintenance. The number of places you can "park" a
600-foot warship are limited. The ship will be seen arriving and
departing. Ports of call many times are announced. Once its location is
known, it can be tracked by the usual methods, including by submarine
and by aircraft and by satellite. The Navy's PR department says the
powerplant heat bloom is minimized, as is the ship's wake and
disturbance on the ocean surface. Maybe not as well as the Navy would
like, eh? Military PR is the very definition of self-serving.

Now, of course, very few if any of the third world countries we make
war
on have the assets to do this. But some of those countries have
sponsors
or are client states of major countries that do have modern ships,
planes, submarines, satellites. It doesn't take much effort to
"communicate" the location of an enemy's assets. I'm confident the
Russians would not be displeased if some ******** of a country sucking
on Moscow's teat managed to put a hole through the hull of the Zumwalt.

On another note, isn't it wonderful that I pose these "provocative"
issues here? It gives the boys something to discuss besides Herring's
tiptoeing through the tulips, Tim's Remembrance of Posts Past*,
W'hine's
telling us just how big and fancy his boat is, Bert's regurgitation of
his fondness for John Birch Society bull****,
Ingersoll's schizophrenia, CalifBill's own brand of right-wing
insanity,
FlaJim's junior high school insults, and so forth and so on.

As always, have nice day!


* Full apologies to Marcel Proust and his À la recherche du temps
perdu...

Your issues are about as provocative as a dog lifting his leg to pee.


He also hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Navy ships have been
refueling at sea every day since they ran on coal or bunker oil. Since
the mid 1970's the newer frigates and DLGs are powered with gas turbines
which are also refueled at sea on a regular basis. "Oilers" aren't
Oilers anymore.

In today's Navy the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers
perform the roles of several former ship classes including destroyers
and cruisers. The expensive to build cruiser class ship has gone the
way of the WWII battleship. The DLGs have more firepower, are armored
(including kelvar), have Aegis Combat Systems and sophisticated,
Electronic Countermeasure Systems that are constantly being improved
upon. They have become the backbone of US Navy warships along with
carriers and submarines. They are efficient, fast and cheaper to build
and maintain.

The USS Zumwald is just another potential step in the evolution of
destroyer technology and capabilities. It may or may not become the
"go-to" design of the future but in order to determine that, designs,
CAD drawings and schematics have to be turned into hardware for testing.

But, back to the ancient Navy ... the one we were in ... here's what
being on a destroyer was like back when I was on a couple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih7ygOUz_Wg




Thanks for the Navy PR and for missing the point.

I hope you enjoyed the video. I sure did.

On 4/20/2014 10:03 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 9:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 9:03 AM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 4/20/2014 8:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 10:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Here's a game for you Harry.

It's a "hi res" Google satellite image of the 61 million square miles
of the Pacific Ocean.

I zoomed in close enough to draw a fairly wide, bright red line
that is
605 feet long (all to scale) and saved it on the image. I then
zoomed
back out to capture the full Pacific again and took a screen capture
of it.

You mission, should you chose to accept it, is to find the red line.
You can save the picture and zoom away. It's there, guarantee it.
I know where it is, so I can zoom in and easily find it.

Can you?

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ch/Pacific.jpg



I don't know...can I?

The photo is hardly "hi res."

There are aspects to locating this ship you haven't really considered.

It's a large ship, and it is powered by fossil fuel. A lot of fossil
fuel. Refueling these ships at sea is a very risky business, though it
can be done. It is going to have to make port for fuel, for supplies,
and sometimes for maintenance. The number of places you can "park" a
600-foot warship are limited. The ship will be seen arriving and
departing. Ports of call many times are announced. Once its location is
known, it can be tracked by the usual methods, including by submarine
and by aircraft and by satellite. The Navy's PR department says the
powerplant heat bloom is minimized, as is the ship's wake and
disturbance on the ocean surface. Maybe not as well as the Navy would
like, eh? Military PR is the very definition of self-serving.

Now, of course, very few if any of the third world countries we make
war
on have the assets to do this. But some of those countries have
sponsors
or are client states of major countries that do have modern ships,
planes, submarines, satellites. It doesn't take much effort to
"communicate" the location of an enemy's assets. I'm confident the
Russians would not be displeased if some ******** of a country sucking
on Moscow's teat managed to put a hole through the hull of the Zumwalt.

On another note, isn't it wonderful that I pose these "provocative"
issues here? It gives the boys something to discuss besides Herring's
tiptoeing through the tulips, Tim's Remembrance of Posts Past*,
W'hine's
telling us just how big and fancy his boat is, Bert's regurgitation of
his fondness for John Birch Society bull****,
Ingersoll's schizophrenia, CalifBill's own brand of right-wing
insanity,
FlaJim's junior high school insults, and so forth and so on.

As always, have nice day!


* Full apologies to Marcel Proust and his À la recherche du temps
perdu...

Your issues are about as provocative as a dog lifting his leg to pee.


He also hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Navy ships have been
refueling at sea every day since they ran on coal or bunker oil. Since
the mid 1970's the newer frigates and DLGs are powered with gas turbines
which are also refueled at sea on a regular basis. "Oilers" aren't
Oilers anymore.

In today's Navy the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers
perform the roles of several former ship classes including destroyers
and cruisers. The expensive to build cruiser class ship has gone the
way of the WWII battleship. The DLGs have more firepower, are armored
(including kelvar), have Aegis Combat Systems and sophisticated,
Electronic Countermeasure Systems that are constantly being improved
upon. They have become the backbone of US Navy warships along with
carriers and submarines. They are efficient, fast and cheaper to build
and maintain.

The USS Zumwald is just another potential step in the evolution of
destroyer technology and capabilities. It may or may not become the
"go-to" design of the future but in order to determine that, designs,
CAD drawings and schematics have to be turned into hardware for testing.

But, back to the ancient Navy ... the one we were in ... here's what
being on a destroyer was like back when I was on a couple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih7ygOUz_Wg




Thanks for the Navy PR and for missing the point.

The point wasn't that the ship had to make port to refuel. Refueling was
just an example. The point was that the ship had to make port for any
number of reasons, and that when it did, it would be impossible for the
ship to be "stealthy" because its presence would be known and could be
communicated, and it could be watched while in port and when leaving
port. It's not difficult watching nuclear submarines making and leaving
port, and they are a hell of a lot stealthier than the Zumwalt, and even
they can be tracked.

Any large warship at sea can be found and damaged or sunk. You can't
hide a military surface ship two football fields long at sea. The
Zumwalt is only 200 feet shorter than the Bismarck, and it was spotted
and sunk.

Perhaps the Navy can waste a hundred billion more dollars and come up
with a cloaking device.




OMG. The *Bismarck?*

What type of electronic countermeasures did the Bismarck have?

You're note about refueling ... you said, "risky, but it *can* be done.
Not only *can* it be done, it is done everyday. There's actually
significant risk refueling in port. This is JP5 kerosene type fuel they
are using.

Pull your head out of the dark ages man.

On 4/20/14, 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:03:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Any large warship at sea can be found and damaged or sunk. You can't
hide a military surface ship two football fields long at sea. The
Zumwalt is only 200 feet shorter than the Bismarck, and it was spotted
and sunk.

When was the last US warship "found and sunk"?



The U.S.S. Cole was "found" and seriously damaged in an attack in Yemen.
It didn't sink, but it was rendered useless.

Are you trying to say it can't happen?

In article ,
says...


The USS Zumwald is just another potential step in the evolution of
destroyer technology and capabilities. It may or may not become the
"go-to" design of the future but in order to determine that, designs,
CAD drawings and schematics have to be turned into hardware for testing.


It shouldn't even be called a Destroyer. It's a Cruiser.
It's 600 feet long.
What next, 300 foot "patrol boats?"
Got a feeling that hull shape won't work well.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...


The USS Zumwald is just another potential step in the evolution of
destroyer technology and capabilities. It may or may not become the
"go-to" design of the future but in order to determine that, designs,
CAD drawings and schematics have to be turned into hardware for testing.


It shouldn't even be called a Destroyer. It's a Cruiser.
It's 600 feet long.
What next, 300 foot "patrol boats?"
Got a feeling that hull shape won't work well.

Nobody needs battleships or cruisers except the Russia and China. They
haven't been able to steal our designs for smaller missiles. Take a look
at a Soviet Cruiser and tell me what you see?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ch...raina1990a.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...03-N-5024R-003
_USS_Port_Royal_(DDG_73)_departed_on_deployment.jp g

The technological capabilities of the respective countries in on
display.

The Port Royal is designated a CG. It's about 5000 tons lighter and
40' shorter than the "destroyer" Zumwalt.
Destroyers are meant for support of capitol ships and ASW.
Why call the Zumwalt a destroyer? It's not under previous and long held
definitions. Apparently they just "did it."
Pretty stupid calling a cruiser a destroyer.
Even if the Navy no longer plans to build what they previously called
"destroyers" they should have called the Zumwalt a cruiser.
That's my humble opinion.
That it's named for Zumwalt is fitting. He transformed the Navy from
hard-asses to the "kinder and gentler" Navy.
Now his name is attached to redefining ship classes.
Personally, I don't think that ships will fare well in heavy sea.
It's a cluster**** anyway.
Dead end, as the Navy has canceled them, and will build only 3 instead
of the originally planned 32.
They're going back to building Arleigh Burke class destroyers.
If they have any sense they'll re-designate the 3 Zumwalt class they
build as cruisers.