Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 7:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/18/17 12:40 PM, wrote:


On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

. I
would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a
heavy hit
like it took without being so seriously damaged.

The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and
fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi.
It is amazing it did not sustain more damage.
There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of
crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear
if that was before or after the accident.



Well, I'm not a metallurgist and I don't play one on the internets (!),
but it seems to me that in the age of missiles, a lightly built warship
is an invitation to disaster.

That's because you don't understand the capabilities of the Aegis system
that all the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the few cruisers we have
are equipped with. The Aegis system can track 100 or missiles
simultaneously, target those that threaten the ship while transmitting
targeting data to other Aegis equipped ships for targeting purposes. It
can create a "web" of missile targeting data, designed to defend and
protect not only itself but also other ships (like aircraft carriers)
that may be targeted.

No ship is designed to be rammed by another ship that is 6 times it's
displacement traveling at 15 knots. In combat situations an enemy ship
wouldn't get close to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



I am underwhelmed by the technology you describe. Some of a flood of
incoming missiles may well get through. I appreciate the physics of the
latest collision.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

On 6/19/2017 8:24 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 7:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/18/17 12:40 PM, wrote:


On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

. I
would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a
heavy hit
like it took without being so seriously damaged.

The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and
fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a semi.
It is amazing it did not sustain more damage.
There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of
crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was unclear
if that was before or after the accident.



Well, I'm not a metallurgist and I don't play one on the internets (!),
but it seems to me that in the age of missiles, a lightly built warship
is an invitation to disaster.

That's because you don't understand the capabilities of the Aegis system
that all the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the few cruisers we have
are equipped with. The Aegis system can track 100 or missiles
simultaneously, target those that threaten the ship while transmitting
targeting data to other Aegis equipped ships for targeting purposes. It
can create a "web" of missile targeting data, designed to defend and
protect not only itself but also other ships (like aircraft carriers)
that may be targeted.

No ship is designed to be rammed by another ship that is 6 times it's
displacement traveling at 15 knots. In combat situations an enemy ship
wouldn't get close to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



I am underwhelmed by the technology you describe. Some of a flood of
incoming missiles may well get through. I appreciate the physics of the
latest collision.


Of course you are underwhelmed. I doubt anything would impress you,
militarily, mainly because you have little or no knowledge of the
systems, how they work and what they are capable of.

You also have to realize that the smaller destroyer type ships in a task
force are considered to be "expendable" in combat (as a last resort)
compared to the much more expensive capital ships like aircraft carriers.

On 6/19/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 8:24 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 7:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/18/17 12:40 PM, wrote:


On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

. I
would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a
heavy hit
like it took without being so seriously damaged.

The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light and
fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a
semi.
It is amazing it did not sustain more damage.
There was still something strange going on here to have this kind of
crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was
unclear
if that was before or after the accident.



Well, I'm not a metallurgist and I don't play one on the internets (!),
but it seems to me that in the age of missiles, a lightly built warship
is an invitation to disaster.

That's because you don't understand the capabilities of the Aegis system
that all the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the few cruisers we have
are equipped with. The Aegis system can track 100 or missiles
simultaneously, target those that threaten the ship while transmitting
targeting data to other Aegis equipped ships for targeting purposes. It
can create a "web" of missile targeting data, designed to defend and
protect not only itself but also other ships (like aircraft carriers)
that may be targeted.

No ship is designed to be rammed by another ship that is 6 times it's
displacement traveling at 15 knots. In combat situations an enemy ship
wouldn't get close to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



I am underwhelmed by the technology you describe. Some of a flood of
incoming missiles may well get through. I appreciate the physics of the
latest collision.


Of course you are underwhelmed. I doubt anything would impress you,
militarily, mainly because you have little or no knowledge of the
systems, how they work and what they are capable of.

You also have to realize that the smaller destroyer type ships in a task
force are considered to be "expendable" in combat (as a last resort)
compared to the much more expensive capital ships like aircraft carriers.


I see too much emphasis on high-tech technology.

FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB.

"In France whe have more informations ...
It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew.
And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ...
Investigation is underway With this crew..."

On 6/19/17 9:20 AM, Tim wrote:
FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB.

"In France whe have more informations ...
It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew.
And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ...
Investigation is underway With this crew..."


NPR has a pretty decent early analysis of what might have gone
wrong...it includes this about a previous incident on a similar
high-tech ship:

Sailors in the Fitzgerald's combat information center and on its bridge
are responsible for using the ship's sensors to plot the location of
each one, as well as the directions they're headed and the speed at
which they're sailing. Officers and sailors must at all times keep what
the Navy calls good "situational awareness" about not only what their
own ship is doing, but about what might be ahead in the next patch of
ocean where the Fitzgerald wants to sail.

In 2012 a sibling of the Fitzgerald, the destroyer USS Porter, was in a
congested, high-traffic seaway called the Strait of Hormuz — the ribbon
of water that connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea — when it
collided with an oil tanker. The Navy's investigation later found that
as sailors tried to keep track of the traffic all around them, including
those ships headed the other direction, they lost focus on their own
immediate course ahead.


Ergo, the high technology doesn't always promote good seamanship.
Training as careful sailors may be more important than training as
operators of computer consoles.

On 6/19/2017 9:00 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/19/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 8:24 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 7:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/18/17 12:40 PM, wrote:


On 6/18/2017 10:37 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:20:45 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

. I
would have thought a modern warship would be able to sustain a
heavy hit
like it took without being so seriously damaged.

The days of the armor clad dreadnought are gone. Ships are light
and
fast. Like Richard says, this was a sports car getting hit by a
semi.
It is amazing it did not sustain more damage.
There was still something strange going on here to have this
kind of
crash. The plot I saw showed some unusual maneuvers but it was
unclear
if that was before or after the accident.



Well, I'm not a metallurgist and I don't play one on the internets
(!),
but it seems to me that in the age of missiles, a lightly built
warship
is an invitation to disaster.

That's because you don't understand the capabilities of the Aegis
system
that all the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the few cruisers we
have
are equipped with. The Aegis system can track 100 or missiles
simultaneously, target those that threaten the ship while transmitting
targeting data to other Aegis equipped ships for targeting purposes. It
can create a "web" of missile targeting data, designed to defend and
protect not only itself but also other ships (like aircraft carriers)
that may be targeted.

No ship is designed to be rammed by another ship that is 6 times it's
displacement traveling at 15 knots. In combat situations an enemy ship
wouldn't get close to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



I am underwhelmed by the technology you describe. Some of a flood of
incoming missiles may well get through. I appreciate the physics of the
latest collision.


Of course you are underwhelmed. I doubt anything would impress you,
militarily, mainly because you have little or no knowledge of the
systems, how they work and what they are capable of.

You also have to realize that the smaller destroyer type ships in a
task force are considered to be "expendable" in combat (as a last
resort) compared to the much more expensive capital ships like
aircraft carriers.


I see too much emphasis on high-tech technology.


As opposed to what? Making a ship indestructible?

On 6/19/2017 9:20 AM, Tim wrote:
FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB.

"In France whe have more informations ...
It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew.
And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ...
Investigation is underway With this crew..."



I wonder what they mean by "abruptly changed direction".

A ship like that, loaded as it was, can't "abruptly change direction".




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 6/19/2017 9:26 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/19/17 9:20 AM, Tim wrote:
FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB.

"In France whe have more informations ...
It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and
crew.
And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ...
Investigation is underway With this crew..."


NPR has a pretty decent early analysis of what might have gone
wrong...it includes this about a previous incident on a similar
high-tech ship:

Sailors in the Fitzgerald's combat information center and on its bridge
are responsible for using the ship's sensors to plot the location of
each one, as well as the directions they're headed and the speed at
which they're sailing. Officers and sailors must at all times keep what
the Navy calls good "situational awareness" about not only what their
own ship is doing, but about what might be ahead in the next patch of
ocean where the Fitzgerald wants to sail.

In 2012 a sibling of the Fitzgerald, the destroyer USS Porter, was in a
congested, high-traffic seaway called the Strait of Hormuz — the ribbon
of water that connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea — when it
collided with an oil tanker. The Navy's investigation later found that
as sailors tried to keep track of the traffic all around them, including
those ships headed the other direction, they lost focus on their own
immediate course ahead.


Ergo, the high technology doesn't always promote good seamanship.
Training as careful sailors may be more important than training as
operators of computer consoles.


It will probably please you to know that Navy ships do not rely only on
computer consoles for situational awareness. Ask any sailor who has
stood watches while underway.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Mr. Luddite
On 6/19/2017 9:20 AM, Tim wrote:
FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB.

"In France whe have more informations ...
It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew.
And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ...
Investigation is underway With this crew..."



I wonder what they mean by "abruptly changed direction".

A ship like that, loaded as it was, can't "abruptly change direction".
- show quoted text -
.....

Beats me, Rich. That's why I put the FWIW in my post...

On 6/19/17 9:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 9:26 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/19/17 9:20 AM, Tim wrote:
FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB.

"In France whe have more informations ...
It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and
crew.
And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ...
Investigation is underway With this crew..."


NPR has a pretty decent early analysis of what might have gone
wrong...it includes this about a previous incident on a similar
high-tech ship:

Sailors in the Fitzgerald's combat information center and on its
bridge are responsible for using the ship's sensors to plot the
location of each one, as well as the directions they're headed and the
speed at which they're sailing. Officers and sailors must at all times
keep what the Navy calls good "situational awareness" about not only
what their own ship is doing, but about what might be ahead in the
next patch of ocean where the Fitzgerald wants to sail.

In 2012 a sibling of the Fitzgerald, the destroyer USS Porter, was in
a congested, high-traffic seaway called the Strait of Hormuz — the
ribbon of water that connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea —
when it collided with an oil tanker. The Navy's investigation later
found that as sailors tried to keep track of the traffic all around
them, including those ships headed the other direction, they lost
focus on their own immediate course ahead.


Ergo, the high technology doesn't always promote good seamanship.
Training as careful sailors may be more important than training as
operators of computer consoles.


It will probably please you to know that Navy ships do not rely only on
computer consoles for situational awareness. Ask any sailor who has
stood watches while underway.



Well, that certainly explains the infallibility of our naval ships.