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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :-)

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.

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.