On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:11 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote:

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 9:21:07 AM UTC-4, True North wrote:
justan

John H. Wrote in message:*

- show quoted text -

"The crazy ragheads are our only real threat. We need to develop*
*thremal energy to turn the desert to glass. Trump knows what*
*needs to be done and he's working on the problem."*



Wow, Justine!
Maybe we need to keep a dossier on y'all.
Now we just need s9meone to identify y'all do we can shine a light on your roach nest and set you scurrying.
**

Try again, and this time in English.

LOL!

On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 5/6/2018 7:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.



Technology has advanced greatly in the past two decades. I agree with
Greg that two decades or more ago the naval philosophy was planning more
for a war (non-nuclear) of attrition with a focus on offensive
capabilities and less on defensive capabilities. Many of the smaller
ships (like the ones I was on) were considered "disposable" or
sacrificial in terms of protection of a battle group. So, the more you
had, the better off and stronger you were.

That began to change in the mid 70's as warships were equipped with more
advanced sensor systems and radar (leading to the Aegis System) and more
advanced defensive and offensive systems, particularly anti-missile
systems. It has evolved to the point were today the WWII concept of
having many classes of ships for various purposes, including destroyers,
fast frigates, cruisers and the old battleships has been replaced with
one class of smaller surface ship ... the modern DLG's. DLG's combine
the mission capabilities of all the previous classes of small warships.
They are also equipped with the primary task force defensive systems and
are interconnected to each other when operating in a battle group or can
operate independently. Different Navy compared to the ships that were
still of a WWII design concept. today's ships are more at risk tied to
a dock (like the USS Cole) than when engaged in warfare at sea.

Currently the USA has about 64 Arleigh Burke class DLG's in commission,
most with the Aegis System. We still have about 20 larger, Ticonderoga
class cruisers commissioned but they are being phased out as they are
decommissioned and no new ones are being built. The cruiser is being
replaced by more advanced DLG's.

The rest of the Navy is made up of 11 aircraft carriers, subs (both
ballistic and attack), amphibious landing ships and numerous classes of
auxiliary purpose ships and patrol craft along with a few
experimental type ships of the future like the USS Zumwalt.

When Zumwalt made the comment over 20 years ago that Greg and Harry
cite, it was a warning to change the thinking about ship design, mission
and purpose. Much has been changed since and I disagree with them ...
it's not so true anymore. I witnessed the beginning of that design
evolution during the years I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1977 and
then worked in the private sector afterwards on some of the defense
systems under development and test. Doesn't mean the Navy is totally
invincible or unsinkable but we have some very sophisticated systems
that are not advertised.


I think they need to read a bit more about the capabilities of our ships. Of course, I don't know
that the Aegis system has been severely tested against a ship. And, test results like this don't
help its cause:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.WvBVw9Qvy70

On Sun, 6 May 2018 18:58:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2018 20:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the
Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack
guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already
happened. We do have subs also,
you know.


But if it takes 10 minutes to sink the sub, all their missiles will already
be on the way.

We will have blown them out of the water before they got their hatches open.


You seem to think every boomer has an attack sub attached to it. Like a
Remora.

No, not with the boomers, but with the carriers.

On 5/7/2018 9:39 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 5/6/2018 7:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.



Technology has advanced greatly in the past two decades. I agree with
Greg that two decades or more ago the naval philosophy was planning more
for a war (non-nuclear) of attrition with a focus on offensive
capabilities and less on defensive capabilities. Many of the smaller
ships (like the ones I was on) were considered "disposable" or
sacrificial in terms of protection of a battle group. So, the more you
had, the better off and stronger you were.

That began to change in the mid 70's as warships were equipped with more
advanced sensor systems and radar (leading to the Aegis System) and more
advanced defensive and offensive systems, particularly anti-missile
systems. It has evolved to the point were today the WWII concept of
having many classes of ships for various purposes, including destroyers,
fast frigates, cruisers and the old battleships has been replaced with
one class of smaller surface ship ... the modern DLG's. DLG's combine
the mission capabilities of all the previous classes of small warships.
They are also equipped with the primary task force defensive systems and
are interconnected to each other when operating in a battle group or can
operate independently. Different Navy compared to the ships that were
still of a WWII design concept. today's ships are more at risk tied to
a dock (like the USS Cole) than when engaged in warfare at sea.

Currently the USA has about 64 Arleigh Burke class DLG's in commission,
most with the Aegis System. We still have about 20 larger, Ticonderoga
class cruisers commissioned but they are being phased out as they are
decommissioned and no new ones are being built. The cruiser is being
replaced by more advanced DLG's.

The rest of the Navy is made up of 11 aircraft carriers, subs (both
ballistic and attack), amphibious landing ships and numerous classes of
auxiliary purpose ships and patrol craft along with a few
experimental type ships of the future like the USS Zumwalt.

When Zumwalt made the comment over 20 years ago that Greg and Harry
cite, it was a warning to change the thinking about ship design, mission
and purpose. Much has been changed since and I disagree with them ...
it's not so true anymore. I witnessed the beginning of that design
evolution during the years I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1977 and
then worked in the private sector afterwards on some of the defense
systems under development and test. Doesn't mean the Navy is totally
invincible or unsinkable but we have some very sophisticated systems
that are not advertised.


I think they need to read a bit more about the capabilities of our ships. Of course, I don't know
that the Aegis system has been severely tested against a ship. And, test results like this don't
help its cause:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.WvBVw9Qvy70



That's a newer version of a land based ballistic missile defense system
based in part on the Aegis system. It's specifically designed to hit
a missile launched into space and hit it during it's re-entry stage.
Like all systems, there are bugs and more tests to be conducted to
improve it.

In general the shipboard Aegis system has evolved to the point of being
very accurate and reliable. Not perfect, but for the task it performs,
it's pretty impressive.

http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/missile-defense-intercept-test-record/u-s-missile-defense-intercept-test-record/

On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:26:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 5/7/2018 9:39 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 5/6/2018 7:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.



Technology has advanced greatly in the past two decades. I agree with
Greg that two decades or more ago the naval philosophy was planning more
for a war (non-nuclear) of attrition with a focus on offensive
capabilities and less on defensive capabilities. Many of the smaller
ships (like the ones I was on) were considered "disposable" or
sacrificial in terms of protection of a battle group. So, the more you
had, the better off and stronger you were.

That began to change in the mid 70's as warships were equipped with more
advanced sensor systems and radar (leading to the Aegis System) and more
advanced defensive and offensive systems, particularly anti-missile
systems. It has evolved to the point were today the WWII concept of
having many classes of ships for various purposes, including destroyers,
fast frigates, cruisers and the old battleships has been replaced with
one class of smaller surface ship ... the modern DLG's. DLG's combine
the mission capabilities of all the previous classes of small warships.
They are also equipped with the primary task force defensive systems and
are interconnected to each other when operating in a battle group or can
operate independently. Different Navy compared to the ships that were
still of a WWII design concept. today's ships are more at risk tied to
a dock (like the USS Cole) than when engaged in warfare at sea.

Currently the USA has about 64 Arleigh Burke class DLG's in commission,
most with the Aegis System. We still have about 20 larger, Ticonderoga
class cruisers commissioned but they are being phased out as they are
decommissioned and no new ones are being built. The cruiser is being
replaced by more advanced DLG's.

The rest of the Navy is made up of 11 aircraft carriers, subs (both
ballistic and attack), amphibious landing ships and numerous classes of
auxiliary purpose ships and patrol craft along with a few
experimental type ships of the future like the USS Zumwalt.

When Zumwalt made the comment over 20 years ago that Greg and Harry
cite, it was a warning to change the thinking about ship design, mission
and purpose. Much has been changed since and I disagree with them ...
it's not so true anymore. I witnessed the beginning of that design
evolution during the years I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1977 and
then worked in the private sector afterwards on some of the defense
systems under development and test. Doesn't mean the Navy is totally
invincible or unsinkable but we have some very sophisticated systems
that are not advertised.


I think they need to read a bit more about the capabilities of our ships. Of course, I don't know
that the Aegis system has been severely tested against a ship. And, test results like this don't
help its cause:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.WvBVw9Qvy70



That's a newer version of a land based ballistic missile defense system
based in part on the Aegis system. It's specifically designed to hit
a missile launched into space and hit it during it's re-entry stage.
Like all systems, there are bugs and more tests to be conducted to
improve it.

In general the shipboard Aegis system has evolved to the point of being
very accurate and reliable. Not perfect, but for the task it performs,
it's pretty impressive.

http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/missile-defense-intercept-test-record/u-s-missile-defense-intercept-test-record/

Wow. Some impressive results. Hadn't seen that record (or its proponent) or even knew of its
existence. The THAAD results are extremely impressive. Is that system also ship mounted?

On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.

On Mon, 07 May 2018 11:23:18 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.

I don't think anyone would disagree that an all-out nuclear war would mark the end of most
everything - except roaches, of course.

On 5/7/2018 11:21 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:26:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 5/7/2018 9:39 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 5/6/2018 7:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.



Technology has advanced greatly in the past two decades. I agree with
Greg that two decades or more ago the naval philosophy was planning more
for a war (non-nuclear) of attrition with a focus on offensive
capabilities and less on defensive capabilities. Many of the smaller
ships (like the ones I was on) were considered "disposable" or
sacrificial in terms of protection of a battle group. So, the more you
had, the better off and stronger you were.

That began to change in the mid 70's as warships were equipped with more
advanced sensor systems and radar (leading to the Aegis System) and more
advanced defensive and offensive systems, particularly anti-missile
systems. It has evolved to the point were today the WWII concept of
having many classes of ships for various purposes, including destroyers,
fast frigates, cruisers and the old battleships has been replaced with
one class of smaller surface ship ... the modern DLG's. DLG's combine
the mission capabilities of all the previous classes of small warships.
They are also equipped with the primary task force defensive systems and
are interconnected to each other when operating in a battle group or can
operate independently. Different Navy compared to the ships that were
still of a WWII design concept. today's ships are more at risk tied to
a dock (like the USS Cole) than when engaged in warfare at sea.

Currently the USA has about 64 Arleigh Burke class DLG's in commission,
most with the Aegis System. We still have about 20 larger, Ticonderoga
class cruisers commissioned but they are being phased out as they are
decommissioned and no new ones are being built. The cruiser is being
replaced by more advanced DLG's.

The rest of the Navy is made up of 11 aircraft carriers, subs (both
ballistic and attack), amphibious landing ships and numerous classes of
auxiliary purpose ships and patrol craft along with a few
experimental type ships of the future like the USS Zumwalt.

When Zumwalt made the comment over 20 years ago that Greg and Harry
cite, it was a warning to change the thinking about ship design, mission
and purpose. Much has been changed since and I disagree with them ...
it's not so true anymore. I witnessed the beginning of that design
evolution during the years I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1977 and
then worked in the private sector afterwards on some of the defense
systems under development and test. Doesn't mean the Navy is totally
invincible or unsinkable but we have some very sophisticated systems
that are not advertised.


I think they need to read a bit more about the capabilities of our ships. Of course, I don't know
that the Aegis system has been severely tested against a ship. And, test results like this don't
help its cause:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.WvBVw9Qvy70



That's a newer version of a land based ballistic missile defense system
based in part on the Aegis system. It's specifically designed to hit
a missile launched into space and hit it during it's re-entry stage.
Like all systems, there are bugs and more tests to be conducted to
improve it.

In general the shipboard Aegis system has evolved to the point of being
very accurate and reliable. Not perfect, but for the task it performs,
it's pretty impressive.

http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/missile-defense-intercept-test-record/u-s-missile-defense-intercept-test-record/

Wow. Some impressive results. Hadn't seen that record (or its proponent) or even knew of its
existence. The THAAD results are extremely impressive. Is that system also ship mounted?



What little I know about the THAAD system is that it's a ground based
(truck mounted) kinetic energy missile ... meaning it has no explosives.
It just smacks into an incoming short or medium range ballistic missile
at high velocity and smashes it to pieces. It's origins are in Ronny
Wrinkles "Star Wars" program. I don't think it's on ships but all of
these systems use variants of the Aegis type computerized targeting
system. Few worked well until it was developed.

The system I am really interested in is the ship based laser because
it's an offshoot of a program I had some participation in back in the
90's. It was called the Airborne Laser and consisted of a high power
chemical laser within a 747. The laser beam exited the aircraft at it's
nose and could be aimed at targets. My company built some equipment for
putting thin film coatings on some of the laser optics that allowed them
to pass the energy of the laser without being destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

The program had some success but funding was cut in 2010. However, some
of the design and concepts have been used in the development of a
shipboard laser system. It's currently still being tested and will be
installed on a second Navy ship this year. It's interesting that the
newest ships being built .... the USS Gerald Ford (carrier) and the
Zumwalt class destroyers are designed with massive electrical energy
generation capability compared to traditional ships' capacities in order
to power systems like this and the Ford's electromagnetic launch rail.
If ever proven and fully deployed, no more super expensive missiles will
be needed. Harry will be happy.

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

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)

On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:30:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:21 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:26:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 5/7/2018 9:39 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 5/6/2018 7:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.



Technology has advanced greatly in the past two decades. I agree with
Greg that two decades or more ago the naval philosophy was planning more
for a war (non-nuclear) of attrition with a focus on offensive
capabilities and less on defensive capabilities. Many of the smaller
ships (like the ones I was on) were considered "disposable" or
sacrificial in terms of protection of a battle group. So, the more you
had, the better off and stronger you were.

That began to change in the mid 70's as warships were equipped with more
advanced sensor systems and radar (leading to the Aegis System) and more
advanced defensive and offensive systems, particularly anti-missile
systems. It has evolved to the point were today the WWII concept of
having many classes of ships for various purposes, including destroyers,
fast frigates, cruisers and the old battleships has been replaced with
one class of smaller surface ship ... the modern DLG's. DLG's combine
the mission capabilities of all the previous classes of small warships.
They are also equipped with the primary task force defensive systems and
are interconnected to each other when operating in a battle group or can
operate independently. Different Navy compared to the ships that were
still of a WWII design concept. today's ships are more at risk tied to
a dock (like the USS Cole) than when engaged in warfare at sea.

Currently the USA has about 64 Arleigh Burke class DLG's in commission,
most with the Aegis System. We still have about 20 larger, Ticonderoga
class cruisers commissioned but they are being phased out as they are
decommissioned and no new ones are being built. The cruiser is being
replaced by more advanced DLG's.

The rest of the Navy is made up of 11 aircraft carriers, subs (both
ballistic and attack), amphibious landing ships and numerous classes of
auxiliary purpose ships and patrol craft along with a few
experimental type ships of the future like the USS Zumwalt.

When Zumwalt made the comment over 20 years ago that Greg and Harry
cite, it was a warning to change the thinking about ship design, mission
and purpose. Much has been changed since and I disagree with them ...
it's not so true anymore. I witnessed the beginning of that design
evolution during the years I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1977 and
then worked in the private sector afterwards on some of the defense
systems under development and test. Doesn't mean the Navy is totally
invincible or unsinkable but we have some very sophisticated systems
that are not advertised.


I think they need to read a bit more about the capabilities of our ships. Of course, I don't know
that the Aegis system has been severely tested against a ship. And, test results like this don't
help its cause:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.WvBVw9Qvy70



That's a newer version of a land based ballistic missile defense system
based in part on the Aegis system. It's specifically designed to hit
a missile launched into space and hit it during it's re-entry stage.
Like all systems, there are bugs and more tests to be conducted to
improve it.

In general the shipboard Aegis system has evolved to the point of being
very accurate and reliable. Not perfect, but for the task it performs,
it's pretty impressive.

http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/missile-defense-intercept-test-record/u-s-missile-defense-intercept-test-record/

Wow. Some impressive results. Hadn't seen that record (or its proponent) or even knew of its
existence. The THAAD results are extremely impressive. Is that system also ship mounted?



What little I know about the THAAD system is that it's a ground based
(truck mounted) kinetic energy missile ... meaning it has no explosives.
It just smacks into an incoming short or medium range ballistic missile
at high velocity and smashes it to pieces. It's origins are in Ronny
Wrinkles "Star Wars" program. I don't think it's on ships but all of
these systems use variants of the Aegis type computerized targeting
system. Few worked well until it was developed.

The system I am really interested in is the ship based laser because
it's an offshoot of a program I had some participation in back in the
90's. It was called the Airborne Laser and consisted of a high power
chemical laser within a 747. The laser beam exited the aircraft at it's
nose and could be aimed at targets. My company built some equipment for
putting thin film coatings on some of the laser optics that allowed them
to pass the energy of the laser without being destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

The program had some success but funding was cut in 2010. However, some
of the design and concepts have been used in the development of a
shipboard laser system. It's currently still being tested and will be
installed on a second Navy ship this year. It's interesting that the
newest ships being built .... the USS Gerald Ford (carrier) and the
Zumwalt class destroyers are designed with massive electrical energy
generation capability compared to traditional ships' capacities in order
to power systems like this and the Ford's electromagnetic launch rail.
If ever proven and fully deployed, no more super expensive missiles will
be needed. Harry will be happy.

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

Most interesting. Please keep us posted.

I'm so glad the US Navy is doing something to make Harry happy!