Navy stumbling towards BCGN
hcobb
As also mentioned in the “Introduction” section, at a March 6, 2008,
hearing on
the Department of the Navy’s proposed FY2009 budget before the House
Armed
Services Committee, certain committee members, including
Representative Gene
Taylor, the chairman of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces
subcommittee, stated
that they are considering the option of not procuring additional
DDG-1000s and
instead procuring additional Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis
destroyers. These
DDG-51s, it was stated at the hearing, could act as a bridge to a
design for the Navy’s
planned CG(X) cruiser that is based on an enlarged version of the
DDG-51 hull and
powered by one-half of the reactor plant that the Navy has designed
for its new Ford
(CVN-78) class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.
Is that big enough?
The final BCGN needs to be able to hit ICBMs in midcourse. That
requires a big honking radar and trident-sized tubes (perhaps a dozen
of them).
Gunfire is a minor capability on such a hull. Instead it's main arms
are the mid-course ABMs, PVLS for Standard/Tomahawk, a half dozen CLUs
for short ranged offensive missile fire and a few RAM launchers for
point defense.
-HJC
g lof2
claiming it.
Dean A. Markley
permanent damage.
hcobb
> Henry, do I have to copyright my work in order to keep you from
> claiming it.
Cite?
-HJC
Andrew Chaplin
news:0b5f4931-029c-4e9f...@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Come on, Hen3ry, you lifted that straight from a CRS report
(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf) and did not attribute it to a
source. From his reaction, I'd wager that glof2 had something to do with its
production.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Raymond O'Hara
"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:GbKdnbDkO-nsZjvV...@giganews.com...
> "hcobb" <henry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0b5f4931-029c-4e9f...@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 15, 9:51 pm, g lof2 <glof_...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> Henry, do I have to copyright my work in order to keep you from
>>> claiming it.
>>
>> Cite?
>
> Come on, Hen3ry, you lifted that straight from a CRS report
> (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf) and did not attribute it
> to a source. From his reaction, I'd wager that glof2 had something to do
> with its production.
its takes a bit more than a fake namer just asserting a claim to make it
so.
and this would be fair use anyway
Richard Casady
<deanm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Henry, do I have to copyright my work in order to keep you from
>> claiming it.
Everything is copyrighted at birth, and the author doesn't have to do
anything.
Casady
hcobb
<ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
> Come on, Hen3ry, you lifted that straight from a CRS report
> (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf) and did not attribute it to a
> source. From his reaction, I'd wager that glof2 had something to do with its
> production.
If you look at my post you can see that I linked to that report and
was commenting on it.
That report mentions the term BCGN exactly zero times.
My point is that an even larger design than the CRS report mentions is
needed. 40k tons is not out of the question to do the job right.
-HJC
g lof2
Me have somethem to do with THEM, now that a laugh. I just a hard
working little controls engineer on the west coast.
What I talking about is what I called the "NEW STEEL SCHOOL". A small
bunch of 'battleship' ( we don't call it such because it causes some
rather ugly responses by the anti-Iowas crowd) supporters which
advocated for the contruction of a few high survivability warships for
operations in high risk waters. Needless to say we don't normally want
to use nuclear power for them given the high risk involded, but we
have discussed one on the web from time too time. This goes back ten
years or so, and you can look them up using any good archive of SMN
and Warship1.
I personally have also recently talk about hybri nuclear & gas turbine
electric cruiser, but this vessel would be design for national BDM/
Deterents patrols and not 'battleship missions. I know Henry read
about them since he responsed to that string.
Andrew Chaplin
> On Aug 16, 9:08 am, "Andrew Chaplin"
> <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
>> Come on, Hen3ry, you lifted that straight from a CRS report
>> (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf) and did not attribute it
>> to a
>> source. From his reaction, I'd wager that glof2 had something to do with
>> its
>> production.
>
> If you look at my post you can see that I linked to that report and
> was commenting on it.
Seen. Sorry, missed the link.
Andrew Chaplin
"g lof2" <glof...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:39b1cd2d-7663-449c...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 16, 9:08 am, "Andrew Chaplin"
<ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
> "hcobb" <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0b5f4931-029c-4e9f...@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 15, 9:51 pm, g lof2 <glof_...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> Henry, do I have to copyright my work in order to keep you from
> >> claiming it.
>
> > Cite?
>
> Come on, Hen3ry, you lifted that straight from a CRS report
> (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf) and did not attribute it to
> a
> source. From his reaction, I'd wager that glof2 had something to do with its
> production.
Me have somethem to do with THEM, now that a laugh. I just a hard
working little controls engineer on the west coast.
<snip>
UNQUOTE
I am not sure about the CRS, but our equivalent, the Parliamentary Information
and Research Service http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/library_prb.asp?Language=E,
are some pretty smart folks with considerable analytical talent (a few are
f*cktards, but I don't have to work with those committees anymore). They're
non-partisan, and take pride in that. They are pretty good at putting
difficult issues in terms that the politicians and public can understand.
Raymond O'Hara
this guy you're replying to doesn't wrire like he's a native english
speaker.
his mistakes aren't of the usual typo/mispelling nature but are syntax
errors.
his claims to have written the document in question are a bit farfetched