Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTKR)   Navy's new destroyer looks like an upside-down utility knife   (wtkr.com) divider line 83
    More: Interesting, navies, Tomahawk cruise missile, Naval Sea Systems Command, cross-sections, knife  
•       •       •

7872 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Oct 2013 at 11:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-30 09:39:47 AM  
Ready for battle sir!
www.retronaut.com
 
2013-10-30 09:54:21 AM  
And her first commanding officer? Captain James Kirk.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-30 10:07:06 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-30 10:51:12 AM  
The USS Tentstake.
 
2013-10-30 11:17:13 AM  
Jesus, what a waste of money.
 
2013-10-30 11:17:37 AM  
"50 times harder to spot on radar".   So, this thing is going to crash into some civilian traffic well before any combat then?   Stealth only matters during certain operations.    Most of the time, it's a navigation hazard.
 
2013-10-30 11:24:15 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Jesus, what a waste of money.


It's the only spending that is actually written into the constitution.

"provide for common defense"

It don't say nothing about phones, or ATMs in strip clubs that take EBT cards, or separating your 300 dollars in junk food from the milk, bread and baby formula you use your food stamps on while you talk on your phone about the 200$ French mani/pedi you just got and will be at the club tonite to show off your nails.
 
2013-10-30 11:24:51 AM  
Jesus christ that is ugly
 
2013-10-30 11:27:08 AM  

vpb: [upload.wikimedia.org image 450x308]


Came here to post that.. tumblehome and a ramming bow - say hello to late 1800's ship design.
 
2013-10-30 11:27:10 AM  
Zumwalt sounds like an East Germany self-pleasuring utensil...for their trannie sports teams.
 
2013-10-30 11:27:45 AM  
Vastly underarmed as well, if I recall correctly.  And not incredibly seaworthy.  Basically a coastal defense ship.
 
2013-10-30 11:27:58 AM  

Rhypskallion: "50 times harder to spot on radar".   So, this thing is going to crash into some civilian traffic well before any combat then?   Stealth only matters during certain operations.    Most of the time, it's a navigation hazard.


They can always hoist a $60 aluminum radar corner reflector on the mast when stealth isn't required.
 
2013-10-30 11:29:05 AM  
Zoom-walt or Tsum-valt ?
 
2013-10-30 11:29:37 AM  
I think any enemy of ours might catch on when our carriers are being escorted by a bunch of fishing boats.
 
2013-10-30 11:31:16 AM  
Looks more like Clouseau's schnoz...
 
2013-10-30 11:33:01 AM  
I like it.
 
2013-10-30 11:34:44 AM  

Stavr0: Zoom-walt or Tsum-valt ?


Elmo.

Seriously.
 
2013-10-30 11:35:43 AM  

Giltric: HotIgneous Intruder: Jesus, what a waste of money.

It's the only spending that is actually written into the constitution.

"provide for common defense"

It don't say nothing about phones, or ATMs in strip clubs that take EBT cards, or separating your 300 dollars in junk food from the milk, bread and baby formula you use your food stamps on while you talk on your phone about the 200$ French mani/pedi you just got and will be at the club tonite to show off your nails.


Ignoring the fact that you are only taking one small part of the sentence -  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - the mention of providing for common defense does not automatically equate to spending.  And, within that same sentence, is the equally important phrase "promote the general welfare".

The preamble is generally considered just an introductory phrase, and does not actually specify how the government is to be operated.
 
2013-10-30 11:40:06 AM  
www.wearysloth.com

/applying for transfer
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-30 11:40:26 AM  

Rhypskallion: "50 times harder to spot on radar".   So, this thing is going to crash into some civilian traffic well before any combat then?   Stealth only matters during certain operations.    Most of the time, it's a navigation hazard.


I would assume that it has some radar reflectors for that reason.
 
2013-10-30 11:40:51 AM  

dittybopper: Rhypskallion: "50 times harder to spot on radar".   So, this thing is going to crash into some civilian traffic well before any combat then?   Stealth only matters during certain operations.    Most of the time, it's a navigation hazard.

They can always hoist a $60 aluminum radar corner reflector on the mast when stealth isn't required.


BS.  A 600 ft ship capable of doing 40 kts + needs to look like a big badass on radar.  If it looks like just another 6 kt sailboat bad things will happen.
 
2013-10-30 11:43:45 AM  

joeshill: Giltric: HotIgneous Intruder: Jesus, what a waste of money.

It's the only spending that is actually written into the constitution.

"provide for common defense"

It don't say nothing about phones, or ATMs in strip clubs that take EBT cards, or separating your 300 dollars in junk food from the milk, bread and baby formula you use your food stamps on while you talk on your phone about the 200$ French mani/pedi you just got and will be at the club tonite to show off your nails.

Ignoring the fact that you are only taking one small part of the sentence -  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - the mention of providing for common defense does not automatically equate to spending.  And, within that same sentence, is the equally important phrase "promote the general welfare".

The preamble is generally considered just an introductory phrase, and does not actually specify how the government is to be operated.


I assume that was a troll-job, but since I'm responding to YOU, no problem!

People also conveniently forget the "all laws necessary and proper" clause.  I'd think the Founders would assume we were complete idiots if 200+ years later we were still going, "nope, can't launch a satellite into space - it's not explicitly in the Constitution."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-30 11:45:02 AM  
A submarine is much more stealthy.  If you use it for things like air defense that a submarine isn't good for, then you are having to transmit RF energy and you're negating the stealth quality anyway.
 
2013-10-30 11:54:20 AM  

ToastmasterGeneral: joeshill: Giltric: HotIgneous Intruder: Jesus, what a waste of money.

It's the only spending that is actually written into the constitution.

"provide for common defense"

It don't say nothing about phones, or ATMs in strip clubs that take EBT cards, or separating your 300 dollars in junk food from the milk, bread and baby formula you use your food stamps on while you talk on your phone about the 200$ French mani/pedi you just got and will be at the club tonite to show off your nails.

Ignoring the fact that you are only taking one small part of the sentence -  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - the mention of providing for common defense does not automatically equate to spending.  And, within that same sentence, is the equally important phrase "promote the general welfare".

The preamble is generally considered just an introductory phrase, and does not actually specify how the government is to be operated.

I assume that was a troll-job, but since I'm responding to YOU, no problem!

People also conveniently forget the "all laws necessary and proper" clause.  I'd think the Founders would assume we were complete idiots if 200+ years later we were still going, "nope, can't launch a satellite into space - it's not explicitly in the Constitution."


Yeah, it took a fair bit of foward thinking to provide for stuff you didn't know would happen in the future.  Not a student of legislative history, but I'm wondering what, if any prior constitutions laid the groundwork for the ability to expand the scope of the document via amendments (and common sense)?
 
2013-10-30 11:59:11 AM  

IoSaturnalia: dittybopper: Rhypskallion: "50 times harder to spot on radar".   So, this thing is going to crash into some civilian traffic well before any combat then?   Stealth only matters during certain operations.    Most of the time, it's a navigation hazard.

They can always hoist a $60 aluminum radar corner reflector on the mast when stealth isn't required.

BS.  A 600 ft ship capable of doing 40 kts + needs to look like a big badass on radar.  If it looks like just another 6 kt sailboat bad things will happen.


They'll be able to tell what speed it's going, either through plotting it's position or through doppler effect.

And no, it doesn't need to look like a big badass on radar.  You aren't supposed to hit things with your ship, no matter how big they are.
 
2013-10-30 12:02:31 PM  
Doesn't everything just look like a giant penis anyway?
 
2013-10-30 12:04:51 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Jesus, what a waste of money.


Are you kidding? Without equipment like this, how do you expect us to defend ourselves from trucks full of fertilizer, or rail damage under tankers full of chlorine, or hacked voting machines?
 
2013-10-30 12:06:01 PM  

vpb: Rhypskallion: "50 times harder to spot on radar".   So, this thing is going to crash into some civilian traffic well before any combat then?   Stealth only matters during certain operations.    Most of the time, it's a navigation hazard.

I would assume that it has some radar reflectors for that reason.


Or, you know, a transponder that they can turn off in case of actual combat.
 
2013-10-30 12:12:49 PM  
I think we can all agree on one thing, though: the real threat to our country is news reports that can't meet even fourth-grade standards for correct grammar.
 
2013-10-30 12:13:18 PM  

Giltric: HotIgneous Intruder: Jesus, what a waste of money.

It's the only spending that is actually written into the constitution.

"provide for common defense"

It don't say nothing about phones, or ATMs in strip clubs that take EBT cards, or separating your 300 dollars in junk food from the milk, bread and baby formula you use your food stamps on while you talk on your phone about the 200$ French mani/pedi you just got and will be at the club tonite to show off your nails.


You mean provide for the common defense of cowards.
You need not outline your decadent lifestyle to me, derper.
I guess this is how the United States projects its power nowadays: With a tiny little ship that's supposed to look like a fishing boat on radar. Stealthy, tiny and afraid of being seen.
Looks like the New American Century to me.
 
2013-10-30 12:15:15 PM  
Ladies and cowards, I present to you the USS Gerrymander!
 
2013-10-30 12:15:44 PM  
And exactly who is this ship defending us from? Somali pirates?
 
2013-10-30 12:16:11 PM  

dittybopper: They'll be able to tell what speed it's going, either through plotting it's position or through doppler effect.

And no, it doesn't need to look like a big badass on radar.  You aren't supposed to hit things with your ship, no matter how big they are.


If I see a sailboat-sized blip moving at 40 knots on the ole Raymarine, I'm going to assume that it's just noise or at the very worst a small powerboat that will stay out of my way.  I'm not expecting a big-ass warship that has even less manoeuvrability than my little sailboat.

CSB - I was once almost run down in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by an Ohio-class sub in the fog.  I was doing everything right - crossing the shipping lanes at a right angle in a gap between the big ships.  The one thing I did wrong was misinterpret the radar information I had.  When that f*cker came out of the fog I about soiled my foulies.
 
2013-10-30 12:18:42 PM  

give me doughnuts: And exactly who is this ship defending us from?


Contractors and project officers ever having to buy lunch.
 
2013-10-30 12:29:18 PM  

IoSaturnalia: dittybopper: They'll be able to tell what speed it's going, either through plotting it's position or through doppler effect.

And no, it doesn't need to look like a big badass on radar.  You aren't supposed to hit things with your ship, no matter how big they are.

If I see a sailboat-sized blip moving at 40 knots on the ole Raymarine, I'm going to assume that it's just noise or at the very worst a small powerboat that will stay out of my way.  I'm not expecting a big-ass warship that has even less manoeuvrability than my little sailboat.

CSB - I was once almost run down in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by an Ohio-class sub in the fog.  I was doing everything right - crossing the shipping lanes at a right angle in a gap between the big ships.  The one thing I did wrong was misinterpret the radar information I had.  When that f*cker came out of the fog I about soiled my foulies.


Well, a ship like that can have multiple reflectors, or bigger ones, or as someone else pointed out, a transponder.

In other words, there are cheap technological answers to the problem of a ship with a low radar cross section.

Plus, it's not completely *INVISIBLE* on radar.  If you are close enough that collision is an imminent danger, it will show up on your radar quite well.   FTFA:

"It has the radar cross-section of a fishing boat," said Chris Johnson a spokesperson for Naval Sea Systems Command.

That's not an insubstantial sized vessel.
 
2013-10-30 12:31:00 PM  

IoSaturnalia: dittybopper: They'll be able to tell what speed it's going, either through plotting it's position or through doppler effect.

And no, it doesn't need to look like a big badass on radar.  You aren't supposed to hit things with your ship, no matter how big they are.

If I see a sailboat-sized blip moving at 40 knots on the ole Raymarine, I'm going to assume that it's just noise or at the very worst a small powerboat that will stay out of my way.  I'm not expecting a big-ass warship that has even less manoeuvrability than my little sailboat.

CSB - I was once almost run down in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by an Ohio-class sub in the fog.  I was doing everything right - crossing the shipping lanes at a right angle in a gap between the big ships.  The one thing I did wrong was misinterpret the radar information I had.  When that f*cker came out of the fog I about soiled my foulies.


Yeah, as we fast-attack submariners liked to put it, that Ohio-class boat is one big biatch.  Especially in the fog.
 
2013-10-30 12:32:17 PM  

dittybopper: Plus, it's not completely *INVISIBLE* on radar. If you are close enough that collision is an imminent danger, it will show up on your radar quite well.


If you're close enough that collision is an imminent danger, I think maybe it'll be visible too. Just steer around it
 
2013-10-30 12:39:03 PM  
The USS Boxcutter
 
2013-10-30 12:39:04 PM  

dittybopper: Well, a ship like that can have multiple reflectors, or bigger ones, or as someone else pointed out, a transponder.

In other words, there are cheap technological answers to the problem of a ship with a low radar cross section.



I'm not arguing that.  I'm disagreeing with your assertion that a $60 Davis reflector (which, BTW, is the same one I fly on the Io) is suitable for an invisible low manoeuvrability, high speed warship.
 
2013-10-30 12:40:43 PM  

WordsnCollision: [www.wearysloth.com image 320x240]

/applying for transfer


One of my favorite movies of all time.
 
2013-10-30 12:47:42 PM  
It has a big nose.
 
2013-10-30 01:02:35 PM  

IoSaturnalia: dittybopper: Well, a ship like that can have multiple reflectors, or bigger ones, or as someone else pointed out, a transponder.

In other words, there are cheap technological answers to the problem of a ship with a low radar cross section.


I'm not arguing that.  I'm disagreeing with your assertion that a $60 Davis reflector (which, BTW, is the same one I fly on the Io) is suitable for an invisible low manoeuvrability, high speed warship.


Maybe it's just me, but I'd expect that if you're spending billions of dollars on a new stealthy destroyer, this idea has likely come up and been dealt with. I know the F-117 had a deployable radar reflector for just this purpose... it could be flipped outward for those times when flying in places when you WANT to be picked up and stowed at other times. I figure they've got something very similar, and at a rather higher cost than $60. This IS the DoD.

But then, it wouldn't be the first time somebody didn't think an expensive program all the way through first.
 
2013-10-30 01:02:58 PM  

RangerTaylor: Vastly underarmed as well, if I recall correctly.  And not incredibly seaworthy.  Basically a coastal defense ship.


The shipbuilder will now begin installing a considerable arsenal of weapons, including two Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) which can fire rocket powered, computer-guided shells that can destroy target 63 miles away.

The Zumwalt will also be equipped with a new missile launching system capable of firing 80 missiles, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and Seasparrow surface to air missiles.

it will be able to carry and launch two Seahawk helicopters or four unmanned aerial vehicle.

/maybe it is LCS you are thinking of?
 
2013-10-30 01:03:25 PM  

IoSaturnalia: dittybopper: Well, a ship like that can have multiple reflectors, or bigger ones, or as someone else pointed out, a transponder.

In other words, there are cheap technological answers to the problem of a ship with a low radar cross section.


I'm not arguing that.  I'm disagreeing with your assertion that a $60 Davis reflector (which, BTW, is the same one I fly on the Io) is suitable for an invisible low manoeuvrability, high speed warship.


But it's *NOT* invisible to radar.  Even without the reflector, it's got a radar cross-section similar to the big fishing boats you see in those Alaskan crab fishing shows.  And it's got a much higher mast than your sailboat, so you'd see it from farther away, and in any situation where it's likely that collision is going to be a problem, it's not going to be going flank speed.

That's one of the big myths about stealth, that it makes you invisible to radar.  It doesn't.  It makes you "less observable".  This ship has 1/50th the radar cross section of a comparable sized conventional warship, which is a substantial reduction, but that's also still a substantial sized return.
 
2013-10-30 01:07:04 PM  

IoSaturnalia: I'm disagreeing with your assertion that a $60 Davis reflector (which, BTW, is the same one I fly on the Io) is suitable for an invisible low manoeuvrability, high speed warship.


Also, allow me to point out that I wasn't being literal.  That was an example of the sort of cheap technology that could use.
 
2013-10-30 01:11:07 PM  
Yep, that hull design is really new.  Never seen it on a warship before.

www.geocities.ws
 
2013-10-30 01:13:10 PM  
oh and:

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-30 01:13:52 PM  

imfallen_angel: It has a big nose.


[Ctrl-F] "nose"

Ah, good.
 
2013-10-30 01:22:26 PM  

johnny_vegas: RangerTaylor: Vastly underarmed as well, if I recall correctly.  And not incredibly seaworthy.  Basically a coastal defense ship.

The shipbuilder will now begin installing a considerable arsenal of weapons, including two Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) which can fire rocket powered, computer-guided shells that can destroy target 63 miles away.

The Zumwalt will also be equipped with a new missile launching system capable of firing 80 missiles, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and Seasparrow surface to air missiles.

it will be able to carry and launch two Seahawk helicopters or four unmanned aerial vehicle.

/maybe it is LCS you are thinking of?


That's exactly the one he's thinking about.

Zumwalts are armed to the teeth and carry the biggest guns (6"/155mm) mounted on new-build ships since WWII and a ton of missiles.

The LCS carries a single 57mm and is woefully outgunned by anything larger than a coast guard cutter.
 
2013-10-30 01:24:21 PM  
And across the world, the terrorists shake in their boots.  As do the large NAvies which roam the oceans awaiting to engage us in battle on the high seas!
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report