RE: The great military genius

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: The great military genius

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The great military genius

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The great military genius - 4/22/2017 1:45:00 PM

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

Don't tell me the US Navy had no means of knowing where their carrier flotilla was?

Outside of that specific ship relaying their current location back to command, the US Navy is largely incapable of tracking assets out on open waters in real time.

And that is intentional... If you put out a signal that can be tracked, then others can home in on that signal and use it to their advantage.

(in reply to blnymph)

RE: The great military genius - 4/22/2017 8:10:47 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: blnymph

Don't tell me the US Navy had no means of knowing where their carrier flotilla was?

Outside of that specific ship relaying their current location back to command, the US Navy is largely incapable of tracking assets out on open waters in real time.

And that is intentional... If you put out a signal that can be tracked, then others can home in on that signal and use it to their advantage.

This is beyond stupid. What planet do you live on?

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/22/2017 9:02:18 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: blnymph

Don't tell me the US Navy had no means of knowing where their carrier flotilla was?

Outside of that specific ship relaying their current location back to command, the US Navy is largely incapable of tracking assets out on open waters in real time.

And that is intentional... If you put out a signal that can be tracked, then others can home in on that signal and use it to their advantage.

Didn't you just post this:

The only nation which can reliably track ships in the Pacific is the United States...

Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/22/2017 9:05:11 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Proof.

Proof of what? A picture of a boat. Lets see your math.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

It is a picture of the French Destroyer you mentioned... it is proof that the destroyer doesn't have a displacement hull and thus doesn't use the 1.34 SL ratio you used. It also proves my statement that it uses a different SL Ratio.

And because you just blow it off, it also proves exactly what i said about you - you'll just ignore proof and continue to be ignorant.

You have failed to provide any validation for your opinions about the "speed/length" values. Why is that?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/23/2017 4:56:19 AM

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: blnymph

Don't tell me the US Navy had no means of knowing where their carrier flotilla was?

Outside of that specific ship relaying their current location back to command, the US Navy is largely incapable of tracking assets out on open waters in real time.

And that is intentional... If you put out a signal that can be tracked, then others can home in on that signal and use it to their advantage.

Didn't you just post this:

The only nation which can reliably track ships in the Pacific is the United States...

Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

I know you have difficulty understanding English but the words 'in real time' was used in one sentence but not in the other...

The US Military (all branches) can track ships at sea if they work together, but it requires both active searching with the deployment of high altitude AWACs with active radar pings and subs with SONAR pings, a tandem connection to SLAR and a whole lot of extrapolation and guess work... and even then tracking it in real time is very difficult, for the most part we usually find a ship then project out possible routes it will take based on previous movements.

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/23/2017 5:00:22 AM

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You have failed to provide any validation for your opinions about the "speed/length" values. Why is that?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

this is what ship builders use when designing ships.
again - why explain something to you if all you're going to do is say something like 'Cite' or just simply say that it is an opinion?

next statement is going to be another 'That's not proof!! waaah!' claim

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/23/2017 4:44:32 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The truth is this:

The French Destroyer was a Semi-Displacement hull and thus the Speed/Length Ratio
is NOT 1.34...
The fact that you used 1.34 without understanding why you're using it just shows your
ignorance on the subject.

As a semi-Displacement Hull, the SL Ratio can be double the value you presented -
and matehmatically i believe the upper SL Ratio limit for a Semi-Displacement Hull is ~3.1.

This means that the equation could very well be:
c = 3.1 x √434
producing a Hull Speed for that vessel of 64.5 knots.

If the s/l ratio was three then why did the French boat not go 64.5 kts?

An Aircraft Carrier on the other hand is Not 'Semi-Displacement'

Cite please.

what's more - it is intentionally manufactured to prevent it from cutting or planing which is
what allows semi-displacement or shallow draft ships to go as fast as they do -
this is achieved with a large bulbous bow node, which produces more drag keeping the bow of
the ship firmly under the waves (most the time)... but because of that, it's SL Ratio is lower -
Many large scale ships can only achieve a 1.1 SL Ratio.

How about a cite showing the purpose of the bulbous bow node. Because this says you are full of shit.

http://www.dieselduck.info/library/01%20articles/bulbous_bows.htm

so despite having an extremely long hull, the equation would be:
c = ~1.1 x √1040
for vessels like the CVN-70 Aircraft carrier - with it's Hull Speed being only 35 knots

So far you are pretty long on opinion and pretty short on posting any validation for those opinions.

You see - and this is what's going to happen.
Despite being presented with information that proves you wrong... you're going to say
either 'Cite' or twist a single aspect of the above information

So far we have your opinion with no citation as to it's validity.

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/23/2017 4:49:03 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You have failed to provide any validation for your opinions about the "speed/length" values.
Why is that?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

this is what ship builders use when designing ships.
again - why explain something to you if all you're going to do is say something like 'Cite' or just
simply say that it is an opinion?

next statement is going to be another 'That's not proof!! waaah!' claim

You have shown us a graph but have failed to validate where the carrier and the destroyer exist on
that graph with anything besides your opinion.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/23/2017 4:57:50 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: blnymph

Don't tell me the US Navy had no means of knowing where their carrier flotilla was?

Outside of that specific ship relaying their current location back to command, the US Navy is
largely incapable of tracking assets out on open waters in real time.

And that is intentional... If you put out a signal that can be tracked, then others can home
in on that signal and use it to their advantage.

Didn't you just post this:

The only nation which can reliably track ships in the Pacific is the United States...

Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

I know you have difficulty understanding English but the words 'in real time' was used in one
sentence but not in the other...

Sweetie we all know what real time means. Your opinion not withstanding.

The US Military (all branches) can track ships at sea if they work together, but it requires both
active searching with the deployment of high altitude AWACs with active radar pings and
subs with SONAR pings, a tandem connection to SLAR and a whole lot of extrapolation and
guess work... and even then tracking it in real time is very difficult, for the most part we usually
find a ship then project out possible routes it will take based on previous movements.

Yes sweetie we also know what "dead reckoning" is.
Why do you think that we do not know where every ship and every airplane is at all times.
Tell us lil fella do you know what iff is? When do aircraft and ships turn off their iff?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/23/2017 5:03:57 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Infoman
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I really don't know how to break this to you sweet cheeks but there are a dozen countries with satellites.
Some of those countries have a relationship with n.k.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

I know you're just going to ignore this, but not every satellite is capable of taking pictures of the planet.
In fact, a majority of satellites up there are just signal relays for communication, not Earth Observation
Stations capable of taking pictures of the planet. Furthermore - it doesn't matter what nations have satellite's
or even if they share that information with North Korea... A Recon Satellites do not record and transmit
video... they take stills of locations... and from their altitude, the size of the picture encompasses several
hundred thousand square miles.

Sure, China or Russia could technically track US Ships at sea... but even if you had a Satellite that took a
picture of the South China Sea every 2 minutes - you're trying to find a literal needle in a hay stack.

Why do you think "they" would not track the ship from the moment it left port? Do you really think they just go "hey lets find a carrier in the pacific"?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/24/2017 8:56:11 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

this is what ship builders use when designing ships.

In the paper from which that graph was taken the author describes the parameters of a 1480' high speed transport ship, which is more than 400' longer than an aircraft carrier, that cruises at 50kts with props that are half again smaller. It is stable in seas with 35' waves.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/25/2017 6:47:17 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Tell us missinfoman, how fast does an aircraft carrier need to go and in which direction in order to launch and retrieve aircraft?

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/26/2017 7:39:48 AM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Still waiting

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/26/2017 9:02:23 AM

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Still waiting

Waiting for what, to be hand fed like a baby?

You don't understand how the fundamentals of physics work. You've proven this time and time again... so how in the holy hell do you think you'd ever stand a chance of comprehending how theoretical non-dimensional conceptualizations of effects such as 'Hull Speed' even begin to work. What is the point of devoting time and effort to drudge the information about it when you're just going to swat the information away like a petulant child and claim it as 'opinion' in the end?

The math, principles, and numbers are all there - Do the math yourself.

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/26/2017 9:46:59 AM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You don't understand how the fundamentals of physics work.

Ahh I see, you are so smart and everyone else is so stupid that no one could ever understand your explanation
Roflmfao
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

You've proven this time and time again... so how in the holy hell do you think you'd ever stand a chance of comprehending how theoretical non-dimensional conceptualizations of effects such as 'Hull Speed' even begin to work. What is the point of devoting time and effort to drudge the information about it when you're just going to swat the information away like a petulant child and claim it as 'opinion' in the end?

The math, principles, and numbers are all there - Do the math yourself.

The math is all in the paper from which you cribbed the diagram you posted. That math says quite clearly that you are full of shit.
You have given us your opinion that aircraft carrier hulls are not semi-displacement but no validation.
You have failed to address the issue of which direction and how fast an aircraft carrier needs to travel when launching and
retrieving aircraft.
As mentioned earlier you make pronouncements about things and then wish us to take your opinions as fact...then when asked for validation you claim we are too stupid to understand any proof you might offer.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

(in reply to InfoMan)

RE: The great military genius - 4/26/2017 11:35:14 AM

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

In the paper from which that graph was taken the author describes the parameters of a 1480' high speed transport ship, which is more than 400' longer than an aircraft carrier, that cruises at 50kts with props that are half again smaller. It is stable in seas with 35' waves.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

The paper defines a theoretical ship which has Water Jets as it's primary form of propulsion - as it admits that external prop designs cannot produce that much thrust as the required RPM for external props to achieve to generate that amount of thrust would cause the propellers to cavitate to the point that they explode. Not to mention that no engine on the plant could manage that HP for prolonged periods of time.

Way to not read and prove you're ignorant.

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/26/2017 11:42:28 AM

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

phoquing

Thompson, just a quick question in passing, do you say 'phoquing' instead of 'fucking' because you want to avoid appearing rude?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/26/2017 11:43:31 AM

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Infoman
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I really don't know how to break this to you sweet cheeks but there are a dozen countries with satellites.
Some of those countries have a relationship with n.k.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

I know you're just going to ignore this, but not every satellite is capable of taking pictures of the planet.
In fact, a majority of satellites up there are just signal relays for communication, not Earth Observation
Stations capable of taking pictures of the planet. Furthermore - it doesn't matter what nations have satellite's
or even if they share that information with North Korea... A Recon Satellites do not record and transmit
video... they take stills of locations... and from their altitude, the size of the picture encompasses several
hundred thousand square miles.

Sure, China or Russia could technically track US Ships at sea... but even if you had a Satellite that took a
picture of the South China Sea every 2 minutes - you're trying to find a literal needle in a hay stack.

Why do you think "they" would not track the ship from the moment it left port? Do you really think they just go "hey lets find a carrier in the pacific"?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

And how do they track the ship when the sun sets?
Radar and Thermal imaging is not only unreliable in open water, but also are not available on every satellite.

You're looking at some 5-8 hours of 'too dark to see' with each day... in which time the ship can move the 170 miles in any direction...
That is a search area of ~90,000 square miles.... that is the area of the State of Minnesota. You'd have to scan every square mile and find a pin-prick of a ship Every Single Day.

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/26/2017 11:52:51 AM

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Yes sweetie we also know what "dead reckoning" is.
Why do you think that we do not know where every ship and every airplane is at all times.
Tell us lil fella do you know what iff is? When do aircraft and ships turn off their iff?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

IFF stands for Identify Friend or Foe, and is a transponder tag...
How about you tell us how you think IFF works, because you seem to think something which is clearly not the truth.

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: The great military genius - 4/26/2017 3:44:00 PM

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

You people seem to have missed an obvious point completely.

The battle group was operating in the Indian Ocean for some time after leaving Pearl.

Indications are that the battle group had not made port during the initial deployment for any extended stay.

The battle group was then ordered to the South China Sea for extended operations in the vicinity of North Korea.

Standard procedure for such a redeployment to a totally different climate and area of operations, with the group going to a combat readiness footing would have been for the battle group to make a US Navy fleet port for a complete resupply and address any concerns for ship combat readiness the group commander or individual ship commanders may have.

Such a resupply and maintenance stop could take up to 10 days.

This means that there were two ports that the Battle Group commander could chose, the home port of Pearl Harbor or the Fleet base at Diego Garcia, if the group were carrying 'non-conventional' that is, other wise, the group could have done an extended resupply and refit at the base in Japan or even Australia.

However, since both countries have stipulated that no US ships with non conventional ordinance can stay in one of their ports for any extended period, I am going to suggest that the Carl Vinson is carrying such weapons.

The US Navy does not, with the exception of boomers, make a habit of detailing which of their ships are equipped with such weapons (meaning which of their ships are currently assigned to the nuclear strike force.)

What this means that IF the Carl Vinson is going to be on station in the South China Sea for an extended period, the only port facilities she may make use of for anything major are those in Japan, and the Japanese government will not allow nuclear weapons in their ports or on any base used by US forces.

So, she may have put into Diego Garcia to remove such weapons and gone to a completely conventional ordinance load.

Which, given the time frame between the announced redeployment and the passage through the Sunda Strait, would account for where she went before making the passage.

FYI, current US allies that will not allow US navy vessels carrying nukes in their harbors are Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the Philippines. So the easiest way to determine which US navy warships are currently assigned to the nuclear deterrent force is to look at what ports they do hit and do not hit on a deployment.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to InfoMan)

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The great military genius

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.486