|
|
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: actop...@gwi.net (Andrew C. Toppan)
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: To Armor or not to Armor (was: 6 inch gun cruiser...)
GLof815619 (glof815...@aol.com) was seen to write:
[speaking of "all or nothing" armor...] > you provide maximum protection to though item that must be protected, the You show your lack of understand concerning both armor and ship design. > magazine, main guns, engines, fire control, and steering. The rest was left > unprotected, because the armor did more harm than good. Notice that the hull > was not consided a vital item. "All or nothing" ships DID have a large armor belt protecting the hull from the forward-most critical item (#1 turret) to the aft-most critical item (the last turret). This is precisely what Paul has proposed in response to your insistence on armor - an armor belt from the 5" mount to the aft VLS. > Today the armor would be mounted around the 5in magazine, missile Magazine, the And if you armor each of these items, you'll end up with a continuous > engineering spaces (at least the parts where the turbines are not sucking air), > the CIC and computer room. a lot less volume, and a lot least weight than > required to protect the whole hull. piece of armor running from the 5" mount to the aft VLS. It doesn't matter if you call it an "armor belt" or "individually armored items", you _still_ end up spreading armor nearly the full length of the ship. It's _still_ VERY heavy. > Also stuborn, and closed minded sometime, but the does know his stuff. ( I In this case he's just sick of know-it-alls like you who come along every six months, declare that everyone who has designed a ship in the last 50 years is an idiot, and that the only good ships are the ones designed "your way", and that the rest of us should listen to you. > And there are some of us who thing these ship are too small anyway. They need Yeesh....90 missiles in a DDG, 122 missiles in a CG, 150-200 missiles in a > more room for missiles, guns, and protection, wiether it inculdes armor or not. > We spend billions on electronic but don't buy enough guns and missiles to take > advantage of it anyway. DD-21 aren't enough?? Well, you could certainly build larger ships with more missiles, but the ships would cost more, so you would have fewer ships....in the end you would come out with nearly the _same_ number of missiles. 57 DDGs @ 90 missiles/ship = 5130 missiles; 29 "super DDGs" @ 180 missiles each = 5220 missiles....where's the big gain? You've spent the same money, have half as many ships, and essentially the same missile capability....and you _still_ can't afford to fill all those VLS cells with missiles! Again, what do you gain here? -- É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| ||||||||||||||
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: actop...@gwi.net (Andrew C. Toppan)
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: To Armor or not to Armor (was: 6 inch gun cruiser...)
GLof815619 (glof815...@aol.com) was seen to write:
> Once again KOOL IT, personal attacks gain us nothing, and scares off other In the case of MKSeppard it's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. > So you final admit that active defences are not perfect either. I NEVER said they were. That's why we have splinter armor, distributed systems, etc. > leakers. The one missile that gets through the AEGIS, RAM, and CIWS to hit your Some day you will have to recognize that you CANNOT armor radars, missile > ship. I don't suggest replacing these system, only protecting them better, so > that we can use them longer. directors, comms links, EW gear, ESM systems, and the like. These things do not work when covered in a layer of steel plate. > But is it enough, of the right type, located in the best position, these are It's safe to assume that DDGs were designed the way they are for a reason, > thing we do not know. If there has been a study on these factors recently I > have not seen it. not by accident... -- É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| ||||||||||||||
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: actop...@gwi.net (Andrew C. Toppan)
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: To Armor or not to Armor (was: 6 inch gun cruiser...)
GLof815619 (glof815...@aol.com) was seen to write:
> of too much armor. I am suggesting adding armor only to though section that can Just what parts of the ship do NOT fall into one of those categories? And > either A. result in the lose of the ship if hit. AKA the magazines. or B. would > allow the ship to be a sitting duck, AKA the machinery. or C are expensive and > hard to replace, ie the CIC. if something is not weapons system, a machinery system or "expensive and hard to replace", what's it doing on a warship in the first place? Using your definitions, the only parts of a ship that do not need armor Face it, the "mission critical" spaces in a modern warship run from the > What the saying, "Steel is cheap", Yes I think a cruiser size hull was "Steel is cheap" when you add only "steel" - but when you start adding > justified, the added firepower would greatly outwiegh a small increase in > cost. additional combat systems, missiles, VLS, etc., you're no longer adding "steel", and it's no longer "cheap". People in this group make this mistake all the time - they say "Steel is cheap, so I'll add 2,000 tons and a VLS and another radar" - they've got to realize that the VLS and radars, etc. AREN'T cheap. > The Burke gave up to much to be called destroyers. The Helo alone would justify About half the BURKEs will have helos (2 helos, 2 hangars, 2 RAST, and a > the increase size. big magazine to go with 'em)...and they're still called destroyers. The lack of helo hangars in the first two Flights is not a big problem > An extra 32 missiles would be useful now that we are adding And it would drive up costs, so fewer ships would be built, so you would > land attack missiles to the mix. have no net gain in missile capability. > The Burke Block II Plus, which is what should have been built in the frist You mean Flight IIA? Well, if that's all that had been built, you would > place only with more missiles space in reserve. be criticizing the class just as much, because some tradeoffs were made to add the helo hangars. You would be here screaming and shouting about their lack of Harpoons and SQR-19. Face it, even if USN had built the "perfect" warship by your standards, you would _still_ be saying it was unbalanced, unaccepable, under-armed, etc. My opinions only. -- É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| ||||||||||||||
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: flankb...@my-dejanews.com (Tim McFeely)
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: Re: What is towed array?
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:17:49 -0800, Mark Borgerson <m...@oes.to>
wrote: Hence WAA or Wide Apperture Array. >You can also derive range if you use the receiving array in bistatic Too much ambiguity as to where the towed array really is. Scope is >mode with another signal source (for which you know the transmission >characteristics). No reason the Towed array couldn't be used >with signals from the bow sonar dome, AFAIK. not really precise, array is not really on the same plane, any turn drops array signal or at least disperses bearings. And besides if one uses the bow array for a signal source, don't you >Mark Borgerson Just a dumb knuckledragger with his 2 cents worth. Scope's under... É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| ||||||||||||||
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: flankb...@my-dejanews.com (Tim McFeely)
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: Re: What is towed array?
On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 10:58:37 -0800, "Dave" <stscs...@yahoo.com> wrote: Well I was a Torpedoman, the USN now thinks I be a MM. One of the >Tim McFeely wrote in message <363b202f.168839...@news.dmv.com>... >>Hey, I am a stupid knuckledragger. I deal with contacts that SONAR >Can you be more specific? Genus? Species? dumber moves made by the USN. Just after I get done fixing the scrubber, I will reload tube one.... >Dave Scope's under... Tim McFeely É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| ||||||||||||||
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: MTB...@nospam.uk
Data: 1998/11/02
Assunto: Re: What is towed array? - TOAD Arrays.
Well it's obvious the cat's out of the bag now,
or rather, the toad's out of the hole. Just a post to clarify a few points. On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:20:30 -0400, "Howard C. Berkowitz" <reformatted> >Not sure about these particular ingredients, She was closer to the truth than you'd thought. >but I was having dinner with a sonar engineer friend, >and the topic of towed arrays did come up. >His wife, who is nontechnical, made some comment about >not knowing the Navy was using biological sensors. >We looked at each other in some puzzlement, >until we realized she had heard "toad array." The detail of this highly classified stealth programme is just begining to emerge. >Perhaps that isn't such a strange idea. No, >Toads arrayed across the sea... >clearly some sort of amphibious ready group. think of it more as a low investment, high return, flexible extension of SOSUS. The use of toads as dispersed active sonar, One parallel being the 'avalanche' effect in a Gieger-Muller tube. <snip> >The toad array has many possibilities. Watch this space. >Clearly, Under proposed new Navy Code, >a demand to eat toads fits into the hazing discussion. >A single toad will not do if you are initiating shellbacks on a CVN. "Toad consumption or abuse", is to become an offense. <snip> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:47:37 -0800, "Dave" <stscs...@yahoo.com> wrote: This would not be an unexpected response. >I'm not sure NAVSEA would buy-off on the toad-array. It's often the case when an effective low cost system The phrase "buy-off" being appropriate here. If the purchase doesn't assist the individual in securing >I have some technical questions myself: That's classified. >1. What is the maximum operating depth of a toad? Suffice to say that like some other biologics they have the capacity to go 'deep'. > (and where does one attack the tow cable?) This is a common misunderstanding, TOADS require neither tow cable nor control tether. You're probably confusing this acronym with that of the It refers in this case to - These are fully autonomous, independantly operating, sensor systems Having the capabilty to 'hibernate', The toad instinctively knows that to avoid predators and survive, >2. Are there different models of toad that have different self-noise NB. In follow-ups, >characteristics? Please use the word 'species' rather than the incorrect 'model' designation. Due to their biologic nature, Many frontline soldiers being already familiar with If you mean - >3. Will there be an inboard stowage system? There already is, >(next to the goats, I suppose) though not next to the goat locker. Primary active stowage being the WRT tank, Use of this tank allows toads to be deployed directly through Early trials indicated a high degree of baseline correlation, Initial problems with the toads unexpectedly switching to active mode, Another early problem involved the near loss of a vessel through a These have been overcome by the introduction of modified ram Other stowage matters. Toads and goats definitely don't get along, Goats also tend to have this superiority complex, >4. What will Greenpeace think? They've already reported an unexplained decline in our local "Natterjack" population, it just hasn't clicked yet. <snip> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 06:30:56 GMT, rand...@ix.netcom.com wrote: <snip> >All these picky details are worked out through >COTS (COmmercial Toad Systems) The correct useage of the acronym 'COTS' C Collected Please note before posting any follow-up comments, If interested - -- É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| ||||||||||||||
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: shipf...@aol.com (SHIPFIXR)
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: Re: military retirement "benefits?!"
RS wrote; (who knows what she really meant)
>hahahahhahahaha. that's what I meant- they either move up or get out. Too bad you're not better at stating what you mean when you post >Dave wrote in message <363546f...@news.oz.net>... >>Pizza deliverymen? it....instead of waiting for responses and picking the one that's "what I meant"..... DN É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| ||||||||||||||
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@email.msn.com>
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: Modern Merchant Cruiser?
What would possibilities be for modern Merchant Cruisers? Slap-on quad racks
for Harpoons, though off most USN ships, are still in storage by several nations, also gun systems and other missle systems like Exocet, the Chinese version of said missile, and other weaponry are out there... Would there be any nations which might benefit from and/or use Modern AMCs? Ah... what a use for all those bulk carriers, etc that don't make it up to P.S. Imagine the might of the new Liberian Navy. David Powell "Bok!" G'Kar and Bok, in the Animaniacs Episode "Chickens can't be Narns." "Insanity is part of the times." - Londo Mollari, "Knives." Babylon 5, É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| ||||||||||||||
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: n...@null.net (Charles Gray)
Data: 1998/11/02
Assunto: Re: Modern Merchant Cruiser?
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 20:49:56 +1300, "annabella"
True, but many of those conversions were marked by major modifications to the ship, often, such as in the case of the CVE's, removing all cargo carrying ability. Given the need for long range sensors to make a ship combat effective, most merchant conversions would either be nearly as expensive (and not nearly as effective) as a dedicated warship, or amount to little more then targets. On the other hand, there are two conversions that would be effective-- The First would be mounting a helicopter platform and support hanger on a ship, not so much to replace its escorts as to give them more options-- helicopters could be based off the merchies, in order to give the escorts more leeway in their manuvering, since the merchant based ASW helicopters could give a ship some coverage against subs and surface raiders (the latter with penguin or harpoon missiles). Another type would be US coast guard style ships, which while not normally equiped with harpoons, can be equipped so. In normal times, such ships could conduct usual coastal operations, without the expense or danger of a weapons loadout, while in wartime they could be quickly converted. É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| ||||||||||||||
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: Dale Farmer <d...@access1.digex.net>
Data: 1998/11/02
Assunto: Re: Modern Merchant Cruiser?
: On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 20:49:56 +1300, "annabella"
: The First would be mounting a helicopter platform and support : hanger on a ship, not so much to replace its escorts as to give them : more options-- helicopters could be based off the merchies, in order : to give the escorts more leeway in their manuvering, since the : merchant based ASW helicopters could give a ship some coverage against : subs and surface raiders (the latter with penguin or harpoon : missiles). Just for convoy self defense role. Given a ten or twenty ship convoy, having a couple of the merchies have a PHALANX or two, a minimal helo flight deck. (basically nothing but a refueling station, one torpedo on a reload dolly, and a bunch of sonobouys. Train the merchies to do refueling and sonobouy reloading, while the flight crew pees off the lee side then reloads the torp if needed. It can save a 20-30 minute round trip, and the DD or whatever is free to do other things. ) Also the convoy commodore (Traditionally on one of the merchies.) can be ferried over for meetings and such. Add to the fueling setup the refuel while hovering over the flight deck capability and you have just increased the ASW helos' loiter time over the target area a fair bit. Plus I have never met a helo pilot who didn't want a couple of spare flight decks somewhere nearby, just in case. :-) This could all fit into two or three containers, with the flight deck laid on top of them. : Another type would be US coast guard style ships, which while For coastal defense role, you want ASW, not surface weapons. A blimp has lots of carrying capacity, so flight duration is, --Dale -- É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| ||||||||||||||
| Criar um grupo - Grupos do Google - Página inicial do Google - Termos de Uso - Política de Privacidade |
| ©2009 Google |