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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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?