USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/20/2014 8:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/20/2014 2:45 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:30:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/20/2014 1:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:26:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:




Still the fueling bit...sheesh.

Oh, and the cloaking device is a reference to Startrek.

I don't know why you are so hung up on the stealth.

In most cases we would make a big deal about the ship being there.
You usually want people to see your "big stick" in hopes you won't
have to use it.
If it does become necessary, this is certainly a big stick with far
more firepower than the Bismark at 100 times the range.

I do tend to agree a but that this "stealth" thing is just the
"Chlorophyll" of the 21st century. (a 50s reference for you kids).

Being stealthy is just an edge, not a panacea. In a war, having an
edge is a good thing tho. If you can see them from farther away than
they can see you, it is a lot easier to kill them. This ship is far
from defenseless against just about anything..



No ship is totally immune to attack but modern naval vessels aren't as
easy to hit as Harry would like to think. Just because they are big
doesn't make them more vulnerable. In addition, "big" is relative. A
1,100 foot aircraft carrier may look big at the dock or beside a smaller
destroyer but in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific, the size
difference really doesn't matter. They are both tiny specks in a huge
ocean.

The whole idea behind ships like the Zumwalt is that it combines several
state-of-the-art technologies that allows it to engage and likely
destroy a threat that is over the horizon, 100 miles away. Anti-ship
missiles can be deadly but they rely on some form of guidance system to
direct them to the target. The more difficult to be seen or detected,
the less likelihood of being hit. In addition, ships today have very
sophisticated electronic countermeasure systems that can redirect
incoming missiles.


I always wondered how that stealth works when they turn on the radar.


Google up "frequency agility radar" of which there are many types and
modes.


I understand you can juggle around the frequency but any radiation at
all from empty ocean should attract some attention.

It is sort of the doppleganger of how you can see a stealth aircraft.
The airplane doesn't reflect a meaningful amount of your radar signal
but it is a black hole in the sky where you also do not see the normal
background radiation from TV stations, cell towers and such.
It may not scream "airplane" but it is an anomaly worth being
suspicious of.


Trust me. Navy ships don't pinpoint their location with radar emissions
anymore. They did back in the systems of the 1950's and 1960's but that
changed in the newer class ships and new radar systems. Phased array
radar can send transmit a very narrow, directional beam, with emission
cut off in all other directions.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/20/14, 5:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 5:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Google up "frequency agility radar" of which there are many types and
modes.



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.



I'll keep that in mind with my next order of boat missiles. I did order
a bunch of .38 Special FMJs for my new six shooter, but I doubt they'd
be adequate to take down a mighty stealth dory.


Hey, this discussion has been closer to being on-topic than discussing
whether Jesus had a mortal Jewish father.



*That* discussion *was* about Easter and Jesus. I've always been more
interested in another aspect of the life of Jesus...whether he had a wife.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/20/2014 8:57 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:11:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/20/2014 3:23 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

Warships can stay out to sea for years, anything they need can be
delivered by an oiler or a helicopter.


They could but they don't. Crew would go nuts. Even nuke subs limit
their patrols to six months max.

Longest "at sea" period I had was 41 days and that felt like years.
Channel fever gets turned up a few notches.


The typical "weather" cruise was 45 days in the middle of the ocean
but I was on a Bravo (North Atlantic) that went 53,(Absecon Nov/Dec
65).
We used to laugh at Navy guys who were in port every week or two and
called us puddle pirates,



My 41 "dayer" was shortly after reporting aboard my first ship. We
headed south, stopped at GTMO, then continued south doing hide and seek
exercises with a nuke sub for a month. When the exercise was over we
were off the coast of Brazil and about 100 miles to the equator. The CO
decided it would be a grand plan to extend the cruise by a couple of
days to cross the equator and convert a bunch of us Pollywogs into
Shellbacks. I still have my card.

Stupid, silly stuff but good memories as I look back upon them now.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/20/2014 9:00 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:33:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.


I understand passive missile FC systems but how do you find the target
in the first place without something active? (if they are dark)


It's not "a" system. It's a combination of combat system capabilities
and choice of weapons. A ship can still illuminate a target by radar
without providing a return guidance path that is useful. There are
several "fire and forget" missile variants that once fired acquire and
lock onto the target using it's own radar or laser target designation.
They are capable of "over the horizon" seek and destroy. When operating
with a task force there is typically a Hawkeye E-2 (carrier based) in
the air which is basically a smaller version of an AWACS flying Combat
Command and Control station that interfaces all the combat systems of
the task group, including the ship's AEGIS system.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/20/2014 9:23 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 5:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 5:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Google up "frequency agility radar" of which there are many types
and
modes.



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.



I'll keep that in mind with my next order of boat missiles. I did order
a bunch of .38 Special FMJs for my new six shooter, but I doubt they'd
be adequate to take down a mighty stealth dory.


Hey, this discussion has been closer to being on-topic than discussing
whether Jesus had a mortal Jewish father.



*That* discussion *was* about Easter and Jesus. I've always been more
interested in another aspect of the life of Jesus...whether he had a wife.

On topic for a boating newsgroup, eh?

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/20/2014 9:23 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 5:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 5:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Google up "frequency agility radar" of which there are many types
and
modes.



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.



I'll keep that in mind with my next order of boat missiles. I did order
a bunch of .38 Special FMJs for my new six shooter, but I doubt they'd
be adequate to take down a mighty stealth dory.


Hey, this discussion has been closer to being on-topic than discussing
whether Jesus had a mortal Jewish father.



*That* discussion *was* about Easter and Jesus. I've always been more
interested in another aspect of the life of Jesus...whether he had a wife.

On topic for a boating newsgroup, eh?

This isn't a boating newsgroup

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

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.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:20:01 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

Google up "frequency agility radar" of which there are many types and
modes.



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


I'm sure Wayne's boat has numerous long range capabilities that your
typical twin Volvo pseudo trawler can't duplicate.

===

Some of this stuff just can't be discussed outside of classified
circles. We do know for sure that there are very few, if any, pseudo
trawlers in the Caribbean. Bucking the winter trade winds for 1,000
miles takes the real thing.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/20/2014 11:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
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.





I am sure the Pentagon and Navy appreciate your humble opinion.

Over the years there have been many new classes of ships that went into
semi-production. Some have been successes (like the Arleigh Burke class
and it's predecessor, the Spruance class) and some only had a few built
after determining design deficiencies in the initial builds or due to
changes in mission requirements.

The Arleigh Burke class has been the most successful post WWII destroyer
design and the numbers and configurations built reflect the mission
requirements of the Navy since the mid 1980's. But again, mission
requirements have changed and the Zumwalt represents, as least on paper,
what future requirements lay ahead. If it proves to be successful it
will mean fewer destroyers in active service overall (we currently have
over 60 Arleigh Burke class in commission) and a likely reduction in
overall Navy Task Groups which will include decommissioning and not
replacing capital ships like aircraft carriers. If it is not
successful or if mission requirements change again, the USS Zumwalt may
prove to be the only one of it's class to be built.

As for calling the Zumwalt a destroyer instead of a cruiser simply
because of it's length, there's plenty of precedence of a ship's class
growing over the years depending on mission requirements. Destroyer
Escorts (DE) were traditionally smaller than a Destroyer, armed more
lightly and were primarily anti-submarine platforms. They were cheap to
build in numbers and considered to be somewhat expendable in a naval
battle situation. In the 60's and 70's DEs began to grow in size from
315 feet to over 450 feet, larger than some WWII class Destroyers. They
were also re-designated as Frigates instead of Destroyer Escorts. Now,
Frigates are now also being phased out as mission requirements have changed.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/2014 2:00 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:55:27 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:33:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.


I understand passive missile FC systems but how do you find the target
in the first place without something active? (if they are dark)

Somebody has to see them with a radar and then that position information
needs to be relayed to the airspace controller.

Dick is right. I really got out of that business in the 60s and we had
"hand me down" hardware at the time.

The newest thing I actually worked on was a Mk 56. That was at the
limit of it's capability tracking an airliner. The only thing that we
had that was close to the state of the art was our ASW stuff. We had
Mk 44 and Mk46 torpedoes on board. The sonar was still new enough that
the FTs didn't even know what the hell it was. (no need to know).
I think the "weather" stations were eliminated by sono buoys and other
listening hardware as much as anything else. Satellites had eliminated
the actual weather mission years before.


Although I was in the ancient Navy for over 9 years, I learned more
about some of the newer and current shipboard systems since I left the
Navy and worked as a civilian on some military development and
procurement programs. Most involved specific components that are
integrated into the overall scheme of things. It is some amazing
technology and it works which is also amazing given the rough conditions
it is used in.

I had an interesting (to me anyway) time in the Navy. A strange chain
of events led to being assigned to a project group rather than as
traditional ship's company on the two ships I spent time on. When the
project was transferred from the first ship to the second, I was
transferred along with the project.

At the time the project was classified but is no longer. It was the
initial deployment, testing and de-bugging of a passive sonar towed
array system used to detect and identify ships and submarines without
emitting traditional sonar "pings". A stationary ground based system
called "SOSUS" had been in operation for years with facilities located
around the globe. I read a report that the SOSUS facility in the
Bahamas could track and identify the actual ship by name that was
transiting the Strait of Gibraltar as it exited the Mediterranean Sea
and entered the Atlantic. The project I was involved with was the
pre-deployment testing of a similar type of passive system to a mobile
platform like a ship or submarine. Every ship or sub, even of the same
type and class has a unique noise "signature". A library of recorded
signatures evolved over the years and computers at the shore facilities
and then aboard ships can search the library for the recorded, matching
signature.

It is now standard equipment on most Navy ships and subs and the whole
ground based and ship based system is integrated and operates under a
different name. Tom Clancy sorta blew the whistle on this system when
he referred and described it in "The Hunt for Red October".

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/20/2014 10:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 9:23 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 5:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 5:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Google up "frequency agility radar" of which there are many types
and
modes.



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.



I'll keep that in mind with my next order of boat missiles. I did order
a bunch of .38 Special FMJs for my new six shooter, but I doubt they'd
be adequate to take down a mighty stealth dory.


Hey, this discussion has been closer to being on-topic than discussing
whether Jesus had a mortal Jewish father.



*That* discussion *was* about Easter and Jesus. I've always been more
interested in another aspect of the life of Jesus...whether he had a
wife.

On topic for a boating newsgroup, eh?

Funny, we've always been more interested in whether Harry had a wife of
record.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/20/2014 10:50 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/20/2014 9:23 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 5:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:47 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 5:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/20/14, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Google up "frequency agility radar" of which there are many types
and
modes.



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.



I'll keep that in mind with my next order of boat missiles. I did order
a bunch of .38 Special FMJs for my new six shooter, but I doubt they'd
be adequate to take down a mighty stealth dory.


Hey, this discussion has been closer to being on-topic than discussing
whether Jesus had a mortal Jewish father.



*That* discussion *was* about Easter and Jesus. I've always been more
interested in another aspect of the life of Jesus...whether he had a wife.

On topic for a boating newsgroup, eh?

This isn't a boating newsgroup

This has been your goal; to make it a religion and politics newsgroup.
And you've been successful in sucking some members into discussing your
favorite topics.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/20/2014 11:39 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:20:01 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

Google up "frequency agility radar" of which there are many types and
modes.



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


I'm sure Wayne's boat has numerous long range capabilities that your
typical twin Volvo pseudo trawler can't duplicate.

===

Some of this stuff just can't be discussed outside of classified
circles. We do know for sure that there are very few, if any, pseudo
trawlers in the Caribbean. Bucking the winter trade winds for 1,000
miles takes the real thing.

It would surprise me if one of those pseudo trawlers had a range greater
than 500 miles. That would put Bermuda out of range for one of those
coastal boats.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/14, 6:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2014 2:00 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:55:27 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:33:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Another misconception is the belief that ship based radar or any other
electromagnetic radiation is even required to acquire, designate and
guide a missile or other weapon to a target. It used to be so but not
anymore.


I understand passive missile FC systems but how do you find the target
in the first place without something active? (if they are dark)

Somebody has to see them with a radar and then that position information
needs to be relayed to the airspace controller.

Dick is right. I really got out of that business in the 60s and we had
"hand me down" hardware at the time.

The newest thing I actually worked on was a Mk 56. That was at the
limit of it's capability tracking an airliner. The only thing that we
had that was close to the state of the art was our ASW stuff. We had
Mk 44 and Mk46 torpedoes on board. The sonar was still new enough that
the FTs didn't even know what the hell it was. (no need to know).
I think the "weather" stations were eliminated by sono buoys and other
listening hardware as much as anything else. Satellites had eliminated
the actual weather mission years before.


Although I was in the ancient Navy for over 9 years, I learned more
about some of the newer and current shipboard systems since I left the
Navy and worked as a civilian on some military development and
procurement programs. Most involved specific components that are
integrated into the overall scheme of things. It is some amazing
technology and it works which is also amazing given the rough conditions
it is used in.

I had an interesting (to me anyway) time in the Navy. A strange chain
of events led to being assigned to a project group rather than as
traditional ship's company on the two ships I spent time on. When the
project was transferred from the first ship to the second, I was
transferred along with the project.

At the time the project was classified but is no longer. It was the
initial deployment, testing and de-bugging of a passive sonar towed
array system used to detect and identify ships and submarines without
emitting traditional sonar "pings". A stationary ground based system
called "SOSUS" had been in operation for years with facilities located
around the globe. I read a report that the SOSUS facility in the
Bahamas could track and identify the actual ship by name that was
transiting the Strait of Gibraltar as it exited the Mediterranean Sea
and entered the Atlantic. The project I was involved with was the
pre-deployment testing of a similar type of passive system to a mobile
platform like a ship or submarine. Every ship or sub, even of the same
type and class has a unique noise "signature". A library of recorded
signatures evolved over the years and computers at the shore facilities
and then aboard ships can search the library for the recorded, matching
signature.

It is now standard equipment on most Navy ships and subs and the whole
ground based and ship based system is integrated and operates under a
different name. Tom Clancy sorta blew the whistle on this system when
he referred and described it in "The Hunt for Red October".









The Orioles are wearing a special patch on their uniforms this season to
commemorate the passing of Clancy, who was a part owner of the team.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/14, 5:01 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/20/2014 11:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
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.





I am sure the Pentagon and Navy appreciate your humble opinion.

Over the years there have been many new classes of ships that went into
semi-production. Some have been successes (like the Arleigh Burke class
and it's predecessor, the Spruance class) and some only had a few built
after determining design deficiencies in the initial builds or due to
changes in mission requirements.

The Arleigh Burke class has been the most successful post WWII destroyer
design and the numbers and configurations built reflect the mission
requirements of the Navy since the mid 1980's. But again, mission
requirements have changed and the Zumwalt represents, as least on paper,
what future requirements lay ahead. If it proves to be successful it
will mean fewer destroyers in active service overall (we currently have
over 60 Arleigh Burke class in commission) and a likely reduction in
overall Navy Task Groups which will include decommissioning and not
replacing capital ships like aircraft carriers. If it is not
successful or if mission requirements change again, the USS Zumwalt may
prove to be the only one of it's class to be built.

As for calling the Zumwalt a destroyer instead of a cruiser simply
because of it's length, there's plenty of precedence of a ship's class
growing over the years depending on mission requirements. Destroyer
Escorts (DE) were traditionally smaller than a Destroyer, armed more
lightly and were primarily anti-submarine platforms. They were cheap to
build in numbers and considered to be somewhat expendable in a naval
battle situation. In the 60's and 70's DEs began to grow in size from
315 feet to over 450 feet, larger than some WWII class Destroyers. They
were also re-designated as Frigates instead of Destroyer Escorts. Now,
Frigates are now also being phased out as mission requirements have
changed.






Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven Harbor
during the 1960s?

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 07:37:32 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

On 4/20/2014 11:39 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:20:01 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

Google up "frequency agility radar" of which there are many types and
modes.



I don't know what it is, but I'm sure W'hine has it on his boat.


I'm sure Wayne's boat has numerous long range capabilities that your
typical twin Volvo pseudo trawler can't duplicate.

===

Some of this stuff just can't be discussed outside of classified
circles. We do know for sure that there are very few, if any, pseudo
trawlers in the Caribbean. Bucking the winter trade winds for 1,000
miles takes the real thing.

It would surprise me if one of those pseudo trawlers had a range greater
than 500 miles. That would put Bermuda out of range for one of those
coastal boats.

===

With out stabilization of some type, most pseudo trawlers have
difficulty just making coastal passages on the open ocean. My
youngest son's inlaws have one and I find the ride uncomfortable even
on Long Island Sound when the wind is up.

Bermuda is a nice destination but it's a long way out and a long way
back. I've gone there 6 times on sailboats. In order to make the
next leg of a transatlantic crossing from Bermuda you need a fuel
range of at least 2,000 miles to safely cover the 1,700 miles to the
Azores, preferably a bit more. The only way we can go transatlantic
(other than on a freighter) is via Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland,
etc. That's a dicey crossing even in late summer although it would be
one heck of an adventure. :-)

The biggest advantage for us of having a 1,000+ mile range is the
ability to pick and choose our refueling spots for best price. Even
in the USA there are big differences as you probably know. Going
international the differences are even more extreme.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

Very interesting, Wayne. The only concerned we have about fueling is which gas station has the best price to fill up before we hit the ramp at the lake.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On Monday, April 21, 2014 10:11:36 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
Very interesting, Wayne. The only concerned we have about fueling is which gas station has the best price to fill up before we hit the ramp at the lake.

Keeping our boat in a slip takes that opportunity away, so we have to pay the higher marina price for gas. Fortunately, my home marina has one of the best prices on the lake, so that's a plus. It still hurts.

You want to play, you got to pay. :-)

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/14, 11:33 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 05:01:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/20/2014 11:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote:

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.





I am sure the Pentagon and Navy appreciate your humble opinion.

Over the years there have been many new classes of ships that went into
semi-production. Some have been successes (like the Arleigh Burke class
and it's predecessor, the Spruance class) and some only had a few built
after determining design deficiencies in the initial builds or due to
changes in mission requirements.

The Arleigh Burke class has been the most successful post WWII destroyer
design and the numbers and configurations built reflect the mission
requirements of the Navy since the mid 1980's. But again, mission
requirements have changed and the Zumwalt represents, as least on paper,
what future requirements lay ahead. If it proves to be successful it
will mean fewer destroyers in active service overall (we currently have
over 60 Arleigh Burke class in commission) and a likely reduction in
overall Navy Task Groups which will include decommissioning and not
replacing capital ships like aircraft carriers. If it is not
successful or if mission requirements change again, the USS Zumwalt may
prove to be the only one of it's class to be built.

As for calling the Zumwalt a destroyer instead of a cruiser simply
because of it's length, there's plenty of precedence of a ship's class
growing over the years depending on mission requirements. Destroyer
Escorts (DE) were traditionally smaller than a Destroyer, armed more
lightly and were primarily anti-submarine platforms. They were cheap to
build in numbers and considered to be somewhat expendable in a naval
battle situation. In the 60's and 70's DEs began to grow in size from
315 feet to over 450 feet, larger than some WWII class Destroyers. They
were also re-designated as Frigates instead of Destroyer Escorts. Now,
Frigates are now also being phased out as mission requirements have changed.




The names of weapons systems are political as much as military.

When the German army started building the Sturmgewehr it was
designated the MP44 (Machine Pistol 44) because Hitler said they did
not need a better rifle. He wanted an improved sub machine gun.

Maybe "cruiser" sounded too gay ;-)



Well, we all know The Village People had the Navy tagged. :)

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:03:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven Harbor
during the 1960s?

I remember the USS Drum that kept the godless communists away from the
Washington Navy Yard (called the gun factory at the time)

After that sailed away the mission was left to the USCGR unit next to
the Wilson Bridge ;-)



I was a high schooler in New Haven when the Coates was assigned there
as, if memory serves, a training vessel. We encountered it from time to
time in the really small boats we used to play, fish, waterski, et
cetera, on Long Island Sound. Mostly, though, the Coates was docked.

Just looked it up...it was used as a target vessel and sunk in the early
1970s. :(

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/2014 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 06:00:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/21/2014 2:00 AM, wrote:

Dick is right. I really got out of that business in the 60s and we had
"hand me down" hardware at the time.

The newest thing I actually worked on was a Mk 56. That was at the
limit of it's capability tracking an airliner. The only thing that we
had that was close to the state of the art was our ASW stuff. We had
Mk 44 and Mk46 torpedoes on board. The sonar was still new enough that
the FTs didn't even know what the hell it was. (no need to know).
I think the "weather" stations were eliminated by sono buoys and other
listening hardware as much as anything else. Satellites had eliminated
the actual weather mission years before.


Although I was in the ancient Navy for over 9 years, I learned more
about some of the newer and current shipboard systems since I left the
Navy and worked as a civilian on some military development and
procurement programs. Most involved specific components that are
integrated into the overall scheme of things. It is some amazing
technology and it works which is also amazing given the rough conditions
it is used in.

I had an interesting (to me anyway) time in the Navy. A strange chain
of events led to being assigned to a project group rather than as
traditional ship's company on the two ships I spent time on. When the
project was transferred from the first ship to the second, I was
transferred along with the project.

At the time the project was classified but is no longer. It was the
initial deployment, testing and de-bugging of a passive sonar towed
array system used to detect and identify ships and submarines without
emitting traditional sonar "pings". A stationary ground based system
called "SOSUS" had been in operation for years with facilities located
around the globe. I read a report that the SOSUS facility in the
Bahamas could track and identify the actual ship by name that was
transiting the Strait of Gibraltar as it exited the Mediterranean Sea
and entered the Atlantic. The project I was involved with was the
pre-deployment testing of a similar type of passive system to a mobile
platform like a ship or submarine. Every ship or sub, even of the same
type and class has a unique noise "signature". A library of recorded
signatures evolved over the years and computers at the shore facilities
and then aboard ships can search the library for the recorded, matching
signature.

It is now standard equipment on most Navy ships and subs and the whole
ground based and ship based system is integrated and operates under a
different name. Tom Clancy sorta blew the whistle on this system when
he referred and described it in "The Hunt for Red October".


Yup SOSUS was the last nail in the coffin of the USCG weather
stations.
We had some of that function in the mid 60s although nobody said it
out loud.



SOSUS was originally developed in the late 1940s and was deployed over
the next two decades (50's and 60's) with upgrades and so forth. For
many years it's existence and capabilities were classified. The Russians
couldn't figure out why we always knew where to look for their subs that
we constantly tracked.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/2014 11:36 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 11:33 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 05:01:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/20/2014 11:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote:

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.





I am sure the Pentagon and Navy appreciate your humble opinion.

Over the years there have been many new classes of ships that went into
semi-production. Some have been successes (like the Arleigh Burke class
and it's predecessor, the Spruance class) and some only had a few built
after determining design deficiencies in the initial builds or due to
changes in mission requirements.

The Arleigh Burke class has been the most successful post WWII destroyer
design and the numbers and configurations built reflect the mission
requirements of the Navy since the mid 1980's. But again, mission
requirements have changed and the Zumwalt represents, as least on paper,
what future requirements lay ahead. If it proves to be successful it
will mean fewer destroyers in active service overall (we currently have
over 60 Arleigh Burke class in commission) and a likely reduction in
overall Navy Task Groups which will include decommissioning and not
replacing capital ships like aircraft carriers. If it is not
successful or if mission requirements change again, the USS Zumwalt may
prove to be the only one of it's class to be built.

As for calling the Zumwalt a destroyer instead of a cruiser simply
because of it's length, there's plenty of precedence of a ship's class
growing over the years depending on mission requirements. Destroyer
Escorts (DE) were traditionally smaller than a Destroyer, armed more
lightly and were primarily anti-submarine platforms. They were cheap to
build in numbers and considered to be somewhat expendable in a naval
battle situation. In the 60's and 70's DEs began to grow in size from
315 feet to over 450 feet, larger than some WWII class Destroyers. They
were also re-designated as Frigates instead of Destroyer Escorts. Now,
Frigates are now also being phased out as mission requirements have
changed.




The names of weapons systems are political as much as military.

When the German army started building the Sturmgewehr it was
designated the MP44 (Machine Pistol 44) because Hitler said they did
not need a better rifle. He wanted an improved sub machine gun.

Maybe "cruiser" sounded too gay ;-)



Well, we all know The Village People had the Navy tagged. :)

I was in tractor supply this morning. They had do it yourself castrating
tools on display. I thought of you immediately.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/2014 12:00 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:03:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven Harbor
during the 1960s?

I remember the USS Drum that kept the godless communists away from the
Washington Navy Yard (called the gun factory at the time)

After that sailed away the mission was left to the USCGR unit next to
the Wilson Bridge ;-)



I was a high schooler in New Haven when the Coates was assigned there
as, if memory serves, a training vessel. We encountered it from time to
time in the really small boats we used to play, fish, waterski, et
cetera, on Long Island Sound. Mostly, though, the Coates was docked.

Just looked it up...it was used as a target vessel and sunk in the early
1970s. :(




I don't remember the Coates in New Haven, but I probably wasn't paying
much attention to Navy ships then. I looked it up also. It was one of
the many DEs built during WWII and of a class just prior to the ones I
was on. They only made 13 of the class I was on, then re-designated
them as Frigates.

Reading the history of Navy ships has always been of interest to me.
Some had very colorful histories. One of the sister ships of the
Coates, the USS Eugene E. Elmore (DE-686) performed some heroic actions
during WWII, hunting and sinking a German sub that attacked a task force
disabling four ships. The Elmore saved many sailors and then took one
of the damaged ships under tow and delivered it to Casablanca.
Little ships but they had big hearts.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/14, 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:00:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:03:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven Harbor
during the 1960s?

I remember the USS Drum that kept the godless communists away from the
Washington Navy Yard (called the gun factory at the time)

After that sailed away the mission was left to the USCGR unit next to
the Wilson Bridge ;-)



I was a high schooler in New Haven when the Coates was assigned there
as, if memory serves, a training vessel. We encountered it from time to
time in the really small boats we used to play, fish, waterski, et
cetera, on Long Island Sound. Mostly, though, the Coates was docked.

Just looked it up...it was used as a target vessel and sunk in the early
1970s. :(


I am not familiar with that one but I was in the 5th district.
Pretty much all of the weather cutters were given to the Vietnamese in
the late 60s and early 70s.
I guess it was a tax write off ;-)

I often wonder what became of them.



The Chinese turned them into razor blades and Apple computers! :)

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/14, 12:30 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2014 12:00 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:03:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven Harbor
during the 1960s?

I remember the USS Drum that kept the godless communists away from the
Washington Navy Yard (called the gun factory at the time)

After that sailed away the mission was left to the USCGR unit next to
the Wilson Bridge ;-)



I was a high schooler in New Haven when the Coates was assigned there
as, if memory serves, a training vessel. We encountered it from time to
time in the really small boats we used to play, fish, waterski, et
cetera, on Long Island Sound. Mostly, though, the Coates was docked.

Just looked it up...it was used as a target vessel and sunk in the early
1970s. :(




I don't remember the Coates in New Haven, but I probably wasn't paying
much attention to Navy ships then. I looked it up also. It was one of
the many DEs built during WWII and of a class just prior to the ones I
was on. They only made 13 of the class I was on, then re-designated
them as Frigates.

Reading the history of Navy ships has always been of interest to me.
Some had very colorful histories. One of the sister ships of the
Coates, the USS Eugene E. Elmore (DE-686) performed some heroic actions
during WWII, hunting and sinking a German sub that attacked a task force
disabling four ships. The Elmore saved many sailors and then took one
of the damaged ships under tow and delivered it to Casablanca.
Little ships but they had big hearts.






Hmmm. I wonder if the ship's crew refreshed itself at Rick's Café
Américain? :)

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

My boats have car engines so pump gas is fine for what we do bit I still have l still have limitations on what I use. No E-85. That's way too much 'corn squeezin's' for me.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:30:23 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:00:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:03:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven Harbor
during the 1960s?

I remember the USS Drum that kept the godless communists away from the
Washington Navy Yard (called the gun factory at the time)

After that sailed away the mission was left to the USCGR unit next to
the Wilson Bridge ;-)



I was a high schooler in New Haven when the Coates was assigned there
as, if memory serves, a training vessel. We encountered it from time to
time in the really small boats we used to play, fish, waterski, et
cetera, on Long Island Sound. Mostly, though, the Coates was docked.

Just looked it up...it was used as a target vessel and sunk in the early
1970s. :(


I am not familiar with that one but I was in the 5th district.
Pretty much all of the weather cutters were given to the Vietnamese in
the late 60s and early 70s.
I guess it was a tax write off ;-)

I often wonder what became of them.



The Chinese turned them into razor blades and Apple computers! :)

I would not be surprised. I am sure they were cut up for scrap by
someone.

I looked up the Absecon and the gooks were still using it as late as
2000.
I bet we took the ASW stuff off before we gave it to them. (at least
the torpedoes)

The AVPs were originally built as sea plane tenders during WWII,
designed to sit in a lagoon somewhere. They were round bottom tubs
that were tough to handle in 20' seas. We still cruised at around 18
kts.
The CG liked them because they were floating fuel tanks that had a lot
of endurance at sea.
I think we could have sailed around the world without stopping and
still had plenty of fuel. .



Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:00:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:03:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven Harbor
during the 1960s?

I remember the USS Drum that kept the godless communists away from the
Washington Navy Yard (called the gun factory at the time)

After that sailed away the mission was left to the USCGR unit next to
the Wilson Bridge ;-)



I was a high schooler in New Haven when the Coates was assigned there
as, if memory serves, a training vessel. We encountered it from time to
time in the really small boats we used to play, fish, waterski, et
cetera, on Long Island Sound. Mostly, though, the Coates was docked.

Just looked it up...it was used as a target vessel and sunk in the early
1970s. :(


===

I believe you'd be well qualified to skipper a target vessel.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/2014 1:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:30:23 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:00:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:03:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven
Harbor
during the 1960s?

I remember the USS Drum that kept the godless communists away from
the
Washington Navy Yard (called the gun factory at the time)

After that sailed away the mission was left to the USCGR unit next to
the Wilson Bridge ;-)



I was a high schooler in New Haven when the Coates was assigned there
as, if memory serves, a training vessel. We encountered it from
time to
time in the really small boats we used to play, fish, waterski, et
cetera, on Long Island Sound. Mostly, though, the Coates was docked.

Just looked it up...it was used as a target vessel and sunk in the
early
1970s. :(


I am not familiar with that one but I was in the 5th district.
Pretty much all of the weather cutters were given to the Vietnamese in
the late 60s and early 70s.
I guess it was a tax write off ;-)

I often wonder what became of them.



The Chinese turned them into razor blades and Apple computers! :)

I would not be surprised. I am sure they were cut up for scrap by
someone.

I looked up the Absecon and the gooks were still using it as late as
2000.
I bet we took the ASW stuff off before we gave it to them. (at least
the torpedoes)

The AVPs were originally built as sea plane tenders during WWII,
designed to sit in a lagoon somewhere. They were round bottom tubs
that were tough to handle in 20' seas. We still cruised at around 18
kts.
The CG liked them because they were floating fuel tanks that had a lot
of endurance at sea.
I think we could have sailed around the world without stopping and
still had plenty of fuel. .



Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?


I *knew* you were going to say that.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On Monday, April 21, 2014 12:01:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 07:47:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Monday, April 21, 2014 10:11:36 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:

Very interesting, Wayne. The only concerned we have about fueling is which gas station has the best price to fill up before we hit the ramp at the lake.



Keeping our boat in a slip takes that opportunity away, so we have to pay the higher marina price for gas. Fortunately, my home marina has one of the best prices on the lake, so that's a plus. It still hurts.



You want to play, you got to pay. :-)



I guess you boys are not ethanolaphobes ;-)



I am the same way. I buy, whatever is the cheapest gas. We do keep it

moving. I worry more about the gas in my truck than the gas in the

boat. I run 50 gallons through the boat for every 10 that go through

the truck I haul it in.

That ends up being about 30-40 days depending on the weather.

Lately it has been so nice we are getting out 4-5 nights a week for an

hour or two..

The marina says their gas is ethanol free. Maybe, maybe not. Except for the "winter" season, we go through a 50 gallon tank every 2-3 weeks. A day of heavy use with a trip to one of the restaurants at the far end of the lake can eat most of that tank. I use a maintenance dose of Marine Stabil all season, with a storage dose in the cool weather. No issues yet.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/2014 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:50:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, April 21, 2014 12:01:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 07:47:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Monday, April 21, 2014 10:11:36 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:

Very interesting, Wayne. The only concerned we have about fueling is which gas station has the best price to fill up before we hit the ramp at the lake.



Keeping our boat in a slip takes that opportunity away, so we have to pay the higher marina price for gas. Fortunately, my home marina has one of the best prices on the lake, so that's a plus. It still hurts.



You want to play, you got to pay. :-)



I guess you boys are not ethanolaphobes ;-)



I am the same way. I buy, whatever is the cheapest gas. We do keep it

moving. I worry more about the gas in my truck than the gas in the

boat. I run 50 gallons through the boat for every 10 that go through

the truck I haul it in.

That ends up being about 30-40 days depending on the weather.

Lately it has been so nice we are getting out 4-5 nights a week for an

hour or two..

The marina says their gas is ethanol free. Maybe, maybe not. Except for the "winter" season, we go through a 50 gallon tank every 2-3 weeks. A day of heavy use with a trip to one of the restaurants at the far end of the lake can eat most of that tank. I use a maintenance dose of Marine Stabil all season, with a storage dose in the cool weather. No issues yet.

There is a certain tolerance for some ethanol in gas labeled ethanol
free. I have heard it is up to 5% or so but I assume it is generally
lower.
I do think this ethanol thing has taken on a life of it's own, blaming
every malady on ethanol. They act like nobody ever had a problem with
stale fuel, gummed up carburetors and water in the fuel before.

Bear in mind "dry gas" IS ethanol and we were always told to put some
in the tank every winter as gas line antifreeze.


The initial problems with ethanol wasn't limited to engines or rubber
gas lines. Yellowfin had to recall a bunch of boats because it was
dissolving the resins used in the built-in fiberglass fuel tanks.

The last boat I had (that I bought as a panicked reaction to not having
a boat) was gas powered. The CG approved fuel lines were only a couple
of years old but the survey report said I should change them because
they were not the latest, ethanol rated types. I didn't bother because
I didn't keep the boat for even one full season.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/14, 3:21 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2014 1:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:30:23 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:00:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:03:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven
Harbor
during the 1960s?

I remember the USS Drum that kept the godless communists away from
the
Washington Navy Yard (called the gun factory at the time)

After that sailed away the mission was left to the USCGR unit
next to
the Wilson Bridge ;-)



I was a high schooler in New Haven when the Coates was assigned there
as, if memory serves, a training vessel. We encountered it from
time to
time in the really small boats we used to play, fish, waterski, et
cetera, on Long Island Sound. Mostly, though, the Coates was docked.

Just looked it up...it was used as a target vessel and sunk in the
early
1970s. :(


I am not familiar with that one but I was in the 5th district.
Pretty much all of the weather cutters were given to the Vietnamese in
the late 60s and early 70s.
I guess it was a tax write off ;-)

I often wonder what became of them.



The Chinese turned them into razor blades and Apple computers! :)

I would not be surprised. I am sure they were cut up for scrap by
someone.

I looked up the Absecon and the gooks were still using it as late as
2000.
I bet we took the ASW stuff off before we gave it to them. (at least
the torpedoes)

The AVPs were originally built as sea plane tenders during WWII,
designed to sit in a lagoon somewhere. They were round bottom tubs
that were tough to handle in 20' seas. We still cruised at around 18
kts.
The CG liked them because they were floating fuel tanks that had a lot
of endurance at sea.
I think we could have sailed around the world without stopping and
still had plenty of fuel. .



Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?


I *knew* you were going to say that.




Why didn't you?

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/2014 4:34 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.

It is just a name. There are no more battleships and the Dreadnoughts
and Great White Fleet had "Battleships" that were a whopping 300' in
length.

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.

It is just a name.

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.

When are you going to be the CNO?

That it's named for Zumwalt is fitting. He transformed the Navy from
hard-asses to the "kinder and gentler" Navy.

When my dad had command of a DER he order that all crew would have clean
shaved faces in direct contravention of Zumwalt's new navy. Some in the
crew complained and he said he wasn't going to be writing letters to
mothers and wives of sailors who died from smoke inhalation during
damage control events.

It was hilarious when they change brig to confinement center and
prisoners to confinees.

Now his name is attached to redefining ship classes.

Ship classes changed long before Elmo got his 4th star.

Personally, I don't think that ships will fare well in heavy sea.
It's a cluster**** anyway.

Opinions are like assholes, every one has one and most stink.

Dead end, as the Navy has canceled them, and will build only 3 instead
of the originally planned 32.

Not uncommon at all.

They're going back to building Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

Cheaper, you should be glad.

If they have any sense they'll re-designate the 3 Zumwalt class they
build as cruisers.

Let us know what the CNO when he responds to your plea.



Funny that you mentioned your Dad and his reaction to Zumwalt as CNO.
Not everyone liked the policy changes he ordered. He also set in motion
changes that ultimately had women serving aboard certain types of ships,
a move that many crusty old career sailors had a tough time with. I
remember the debates that went on, discussing things like taking on
ammunition at sea where 50lb and heavier shells had to be loaded by hand
by a line of sailors, passing them from one to another.

By the time my older son served in the Navy women made up a good part of
the crew on the destroyer tender USS Puget Sound (AD-38) that he served
on. They called it the "Love Boat".

When I reported for duty on the USS VanVoorhis in Newport, RI, the
Puget Sound had just been commissioned, was brand spanking new and
initially homeported in Newport. Strange that many years later my son
would be stationed on her.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/2014 4:48 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 3:21 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2014 1:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:30:23 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:00:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:03:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven
Harbor
during the 1960s?

I remember the USS Drum that kept the godless communists away from
the
Washington Navy Yard (called the gun factory at the time)

After that sailed away the mission was left to the USCGR unit
next to
the Wilson Bridge ;-)



I was a high schooler in New Haven when the Coates was assigned
there
as, if memory serves, a training vessel. We encountered it from
time to
time in the really small boats we used to play, fish, waterski, et
cetera, on Long Island Sound. Mostly, though, the Coates was docked.

Just looked it up...it was used as a target vessel and sunk in the
early
1970s. :(


I am not familiar with that one but I was in the 5th district.
Pretty much all of the weather cutters were given to the
Vietnamese in
the late 60s and early 70s.
I guess it was a tax write off ;-)

I often wonder what became of them.



The Chinese turned them into razor blades and Apple computers! :)

I would not be surprised. I am sure they were cut up for scrap by
someone.

I looked up the Absecon and the gooks were still using it as late as
2000.
I bet we took the ASW stuff off before we gave it to them. (at least
the torpedoes)

The AVPs were originally built as sea plane tenders during WWII,
designed to sit in a lagoon somewhere. They were round bottom tubs
that were tough to handle in 20' seas. We still cruised at around 18
kts.
The CG liked them because they were floating fuel tanks that had a lot
of endurance at sea.
I think we could have sailed around the world without stopping and
still had plenty of fuel. .



Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?


I *knew* you were going to say that.




Why didn't you?


Because I am not on a crusade in life to influence political correctness
or correct the use of offensive racial names. I calibrate people by what
they say and do and that determines my willingness to be associated with
them. My responsibility to correct or influence was with my kids and,
in some cases, some who worked for my company although that was in the
form of policy.

For many who served in Vietnam the term "Gook" was an intentional
derogatory name for people who were trying to kill you, much like "Jap"
and "Kraut" were commonly used in WWII.

I agree that those terms are not appropriate today. But listening to
how people speak or reading what they write often provides calibration
of who you are dealing with and what makes them tick. When someone says
or writes three sentences with two or three, "****'in" (whatevers) in
them, you get a pretty good idea of what kind of mentality you are
dealing with.

I'd argue that it's better to let them rip than to listen to feigned,
political correctness. At least you know.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/14, 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:48:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?


I *knew* you were going to say that.




Why didn't you?

Maybe he sees it as more of a political statement than racial (like I
do) and as you have demonstrated here, almost every day, that you can
say the most offensive and hateful things you want about anyone you
disagree with politically.


I don’t use derogatory terms to insult people over those areas of their
being in which they had no choice, such as their race, their ethnicity,
their gender, their country of origin, et cetera.

If you are an uninformed, science-denying, ignorant, superstitious,
religious fundamentalist, racist conservative, you are that way because
of choices you have made, not because you were born that way.

"Gook" is a derogatory term ignorant people have used for generations to
describe Asians, not the politics of Asians.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/2014 5:44 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:48:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?


I *knew* you were going to say that.




Why didn't you?

Maybe he sees it as more of a political statement than racial (like I
do) and as you have demonstrated here, almost every day, that you can
say the most offensive and hateful things you want about anyone you
disagree with politically.


I don’t use derogatory terms to insult people over those areas of their
being in which they had no choice, such as their race, their ethnicity,
their gender, their country of origin, et cetera.

If you are an uninformed, science-denying, ignorant, superstitious,
religious fundamentalist, racist conservative, you are that way because
of choices you have made, not because you were born that way.

"Gook" is a derogatory term ignorant people have used for generations to
describe Asians, not the politics of Asians.

Most prominently though during the Vietnam years by those trying to stay
alive in the jungles. I could understand it then, under those
circumstances but it's justification for use has long ended.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/2014 5:44 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:48:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Maybe he sees it as more of a political statement than racial (like I
do) and as you have demonstrated here, almost every day, that you can
say the most offensive and hateful things you want about anyone you
disagree with politically.


I don’t use derogatory terms to insult people over those areas of their
being in which they had no choice, such as their race, their ethnicity,
their gender, their country of origin, et cetera.


You seem to have problems with every single person of the female gender
who posted here. Was I imagineing that?

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/2014 5:24 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:40:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The initial problems with ethanol wasn't limited to engines or rubber
gas lines. Yellowfin had to recall a bunch of boats because it was
dissolving the resins used in the built-in fiberglass fuel tanks.

The last boat I had (that I bought as a panicked reaction to not having
a boat) was gas powered. The CG approved fuel lines were only a couple
of years old but the survey report said I should change them because
they were not the latest, ethanol rated types. I didn't bother because
I didn't keep the boat for even one full season.


The 1990 era USCG hose I put on my boat still seem to be doing fine.
When I repowered last time I cut off a short piece and opened it up.
Everything looked OK and since people with newer hoses report problems
I just stayed with what I had.
They are solid black material that looks like rubber but I am sure it
is some synthetic.



The ones on the boat I had were black and had "USCG Approved" stamped on
them along with the product number. According to the surveyor though,
they weren't current and should be replaced with those approved for use
with ethanol laced fuels.

I think the problem would be with an insurance claim if something happened.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...


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.

It is just a name.


No. It's stupid. Not that I give a flying ****.
Apparently, others have noticed the inanity of it.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...alt-destroyer-
blog.html

Good pics he
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...712-Bath-Iron-
Works-Lays-Keel-of-First-DDG-1000-Zumwalt/page23

Butt ugly from any angle.
And I think the Navy called it a "Destroyer" for one reason.
It sounds cheaper to build than "Cruiser."
And it worked.

USS Zumwalt Hunting (for Harry)
 

On 4/21/2014 6:44 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...


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.

It is just a name.


No. It's stupid. Not that I give a flying ****.
Apparently, others have noticed the inanity of it.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...alt-destroyer-
blog.html

Good pics he
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...712-Bath-Iron-
Works-Lays-Keel-of-First-DDG-1000-Zumwalt/page23

Butt ugly from any angle.
And I think the Navy called it a "Destroyer" for one reason.
It sounds cheaper to build than "Cruiser."
And it worked.



Luddite.