Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Save the battlewagons
townhall.com ^ | April 15,2005 | Oliver North

Posted on 04/15/2005 2:27:55 AM PDT by Zero Sum

"There is no weapon system in the world that comes even close to the visible symbol of enormous power represented by the battleship." -- Retired Gen. P.X. Kelly, USMC

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Those words of the former Marine commandant resonate with me. In 1969, gunfire from the battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62) saved my rifle platoon in Vietnam. During her six months in-theater, the USS New Jersey's 16-inch guns were credited with saving more than 1,000 Marines' lives. The North Vietnamese so feared the ship that they cited her as a roadblock to the Paris peace talks. Our leaders, as they did so often in that war, made the wrong choice and sent her home. Now, 36 years later, Washington is poised to make another battleship blunder.

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: battleships; battlewagon; cnim; ergm; olivernorth; usn; ussiowa; usswisconsin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-340 next last
To: Wombat101

That is true and magnesium fires are terrible. That is why they have Vulcan Phalanx to make these bad boys disintegrate before they hit.


261 posted on 04/15/2005 10:36:52 AM PDT by DarthVader (Liberal Democrat = Fat, drunk and stupid is a hell of a way to go through life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

The Phalanx, CIWS or Goalkeeper are not end-all-be-alls. They miss occasionally too. They also have very short ranges, so you might be lucky to get one or two bursts in on an incoming before it hits, and even then, there's no guarentee if the missile's momentum still carries it towards the ship.


262 posted on 04/15/2005 10:38:56 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

That's a good way to confirm it. Sub skippers complained many times about making hits on targets and the torpedoes failed to explode too.


263 posted on 04/15/2005 10:39:09 AM PDT by DarthVader (Liberal Democrat = Fat, drunk and stupid is a hell of a way to go through life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

That's why you combine that with decoys, shaff, and electronic CM.


264 posted on 04/15/2005 10:41:10 AM PDT by DarthVader (Liberal Democrat = Fat, drunk and stupid is a hell of a way to go through life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

You have to detect the thing first, and since most ships travel under EMCON (Emissions control) they are not radiating any radar energy at all. It's quite possible that you will not realize you are under attack until a lookout with a pair of binoculars tells you you are.


265 posted on 04/15/2005 10:44:23 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum
Battleships have been obsolete as capital ships since the Navy canceled the Montana class in WWII.

They are beautiful ships, though, especially the Iowas.

266 posted on 04/15/2005 10:44:47 AM PDT by colorado tanker (The People Have Spoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Since we do not know exact mechanics of thinking, we can only approximate it by the application of logic, which is not thinking,per se, but merely the result of the thought process. Therefoe, until we understand the mechanics of thought, AI is only a dream, held back by human failing.

You have a very simplistic understanding of intelligent systems. Logic has nothing to do with intelligence, and all generally intelligent systems natively express forms of non-axiomatic reasoning. In other words, your entire argument is a strawman based ill-informed assumptions that haven't been updated since Reagan was president.

You might want to bone up on the rather extensive advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science in this area. We know far more about intelligent systems today than you imagine, and it is not like anything you seem to believe. The problems these days are theoretically obscure and difficult engineering ones, not fundamental mathematics or theory.

267 posted on 04/15/2005 10:45:48 AM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

"you will not realize you are under attack until a lookout with a pair of binoculars tells you you are."

With Sunburn you wouldn't know until it was over. AEGIS might be one of the only ways to see it in time to deal with it.


268 posted on 04/15/2005 10:49:27 AM PDT by DarthVader (Liberal Democrat = Fat, drunk and stupid is a hell of a way to go through life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: tortoise

I am a computer programmer, specializing in systems automation (i.e. creating systems that perform work without human intervention). I have been for 20 years now. AI in the sense that it will one day mimic human intelligence and thought patterns is a pipe dream. The limitations are not processing power or software but that in order to create a truly automonmous system you must first decide:

1. What would make it autonomous? Does it have the ability, once put into operation to learn from experience or it's enviornment, or do I have to constantly feed it information?
2. How to approximate or recreate the principles of abstract thought, rather than boiling every decision down to a simple Boolean list of "if, then, else" statements. Since it is impossible to program for every contingency or group of contingencies happening simultaneously, the machine would not be able to "think outside the box". 3. Somehow imbue a machine with the ability to absorb input that is not given to it by outside means (i.e. human). It would have to obtain it's own input.
4. Somehow teach the machine to recognize a result which might be false in a logical sense, but true in an abstract sense. And finally:
5. Use the only available blueprint, which is your own brain. Since science has been unable to fathom about 95% of the processes necessary to brain function, your blueprint would be faulty. As we used to say "garbage in, garbage out". If you don't think so, just ask yourself why Terri Schiavo sat in a coma for 15 years.

Technology may eliminate some of these problems, but never all. And as long as only some of those problems remain, we willnot have true AI.


269 posted on 04/15/2005 10:59:13 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
It's quite possible that you will not realize you are under attack until a lookout with a pair of binoculars tells you you are.

The watch on the Starke saw a blue dot fall from the aircraft that launched the Exocette that nearly killed her. He failed to identify it as a vampire.

270 posted on 04/15/2005 11:03:37 AM PDT by null and void (RFID - It's all in the wristâ„¢...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: tortoise

By the way, my exoperience in this area comes from 20 years of trying to program automated exchange systems for major Wall Street firms. What we found was that we could handle the volume, but could not react fast enough to changing market conditions. For example, a simple price shift on a stock might require different trading stategies, each of which required several additional layers of programming. If you had 13 contingencies for one issue, the computer did not 'instinctively' know which one to use.It still had to be told what to do, and that was with $3 billion worth of hardware and software.

Inasmuch as how far we did get, the best results were a mixture of computer to do the legwork and human being to do the mental heavy lifting. The difference was that there was no logical (and inexpensive) way to translate human experiences to the machine. Very often, a trader would 'feel' a market shift or something about to happen and react to it proactively. The computer would not react until a certain, specified event occurred, which could be too late. Also, what worked in one event might not work in another. This is how the market crashed in 1987, by the way -- the computers all used the same logic and strategies, and there was no way to stop it. Result: Dow drops 500 points in little over three hours.

If I remember correctly, the first time we tried this in the late 80's, we estimated that it would cost well over $5 billion a year. Later technology made it less expensive, but the work required to keep it up practically wiped out the savings. It's only marginally less expensive today. We still work off of pre-set instructions -- when the price of "X" reaches "Y" then do "Z". Only human beings are capable of making the leap that when "X" is not "X" but in fact "A", that "Y" and "Z" get thrown out the window.


271 posted on 04/15/2005 11:11:49 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

Exceelent Ideas!

They already have designs for new screws (5-blade) which would be far mor efficient.

The Reduction gears are the best you can get for the power of each shaft, so it would not be the best idea to get newer ones.

That said, they could consider new ones in the future when the class gets a major refit.

The major item to consider is that (as we both know) despite their age, they have seen little use. They have little wear-and-tear and are in outstanding condtion.

Their elex suite is pretty up to date, excepting monor upgrades.

Other than that, your post is right on the mark. (espcially with the 5"'ers---the present ones are a waste of manpower.)

Bravo Zulu!


272 posted on 04/15/2005 11:12:45 AM PDT by swordfish71 (PRAYERS for TEXAS COWBOY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
The electromagnetic rail gun which is being developed for employment in the Navy's next class of destroyers, the DDX, allows the entire ship's power output to be directed into an acceleration device which will shoot a projectile at anywhere from Mach 7 to Mach 16 clear out of the earth's atmosphere onto targets hundreds of miles away. They will be devastating.

First time I have heard of Naval Rail Guns.....sounds pretty effective!

273 posted on 04/15/2005 11:13:06 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

That's a lot of electricity. WOuld have to be nuclear powered, I would assume.


274 posted on 04/15/2005 11:17:59 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Big capacitors can store lots of electrical power.....

Depending on recharge time between shots ....would be the influence on how big the generators would need to be.....

275 posted on 04/15/2005 11:33:33 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Junior
"Part of the blame was the condition of the powder"

That's the Navy pointing fingers at everyone and everything except the Captain.

first is was supposedly a suicidal homosexual seaman (semen?); thne it was the powder. Fact is they re-mixed the powder before they sent it out and re-bagged it.

276 posted on 04/15/2005 11:37:06 AM PDT by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Cheapskate

Yep. I have asked someone who should know whether we told the Brits where she was but he wouldn't say.


277 posted on 04/15/2005 11:39:33 AM PDT by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Belasarius
Wasn't one of the reasons the Navy doesn't like the BBs is that their 16 inch guns use black powder and the safety worries about that? Thought I heard/read also that accumulated hands on knowledge of the handling of black powder was also lost overall. Correct or not? Any knowledge?

Nam Vet

278 posted on 04/15/2005 11:48:15 AM PDT by Nam Vet (MSM reporters think the MOIST dream they had the night before is a "reliable source".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Anyway, main point is the steady diet of crappy History Channel "Nazi Superweapon" documentaries has obscured over time what a horrible design Bismarck was.

OTOH, she did beat the Hood & Prince of Wales single-handed.

279 posted on 04/15/2005 11:57:29 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
1. What would make it autonomous? Does it have the ability, once put into operation to learn from experience or it's enviornment, or do I have to constantly feed it information?

There is a minimal level of bootstrap as a practical matter if you want directed utility, but yes, such systems learn and adapt automatically, self-improving with experience. This is a basic characteristic inductive models of computation.

How to approximate or recreate the principles of abstract thought, rather than boiling every decision down to a simple Boolean list of "if, then, else" statements.

This is an obsolete perspective. Non-axiomatic reasoning systems have no real notion of "if/then/else", though it can fake it very well if need be. There is no correct answer, only a best answer.

Somehow imbue a machine with the ability to absorb input that is not given to it by outside means (i.e. human). It would have to obtain it's own input.

I fail to see this as a real issue. Even an unintelligent system can do this, and inductive systems are adept at sifting through piles of very dirty and incomplete data for useful information and generating derivative vectors.

Somehow teach the machine to recognize a result which might be false in a logical sense, but true in an abstract sense.

This statement doesn't really make sense, though what I think you are trying to say is solved by general context sensitivity (a failure of pure Bayesian evaluation) -- a solved and well-understood problem.

Use the only available blueprint, which is your own brain. Since science has been unable to fathom about 95% of the processes necessary to brain function, your blueprint would be faulty.

This makes no sense at all, as the goal is general intelligence, not a copy of the brain (which has a lot of biological stuff going on that is unrelated to intelligence). The brain is a pretty crappy model to work from.

The big deal about the currently accepted basis (which is less than five years old) is that it was mathematically derived from first principles, and we've been able to prove that all necessary properties exist in it and that it is the universally correct model (and very elegant at that). It also does not look like anything proposed previously, in part because it fills in a large gap in mathematics. That is a powerful fundamental basis, and qualitatively very different from the spaghetti-against-the-wall theories of the past. It has really changed the nature of the arguments among core research theorists, as none really dispute the correctness of the mathematicts; that they can agree on anything is a miracle in itself. The brain was not even considered in the development of this; it was all theoretical mathematics and no biology. That it proscribes implementation that converges on biological brain structures is probably not so coincidental, though it does not map to what the artificial neural network guys use as models.

280 posted on 04/15/2005 12:01:30 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-340 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson