UM-Bot Posted September 9, 2016 #1 Share Posted September 9, 2016 The state-of-the-art ship has 'boldly' ventured out on the 50th anniversary of the Star Trek TV series. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/298628/uss-zumwalt-sets-sail-under-capt-james-kirk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted September 9, 2016 #2 Share Posted September 9, 2016 I was just reading up on this. I was surprised when I read it was 600 feet long (two American sized football fields long). It looks like it should be maybe 100 feet long. It must be HUGE! Apparently somewhere under the armor, it has a enclosed flight deck with a helicopter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted September 9, 2016 #3 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Yeah, the only tiny difference is that this is a ship made for war, the Enterprise was a vessel made for discovery. Apart from that, I can't deny the design is terrific! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted September 9, 2016 #4 Share Posted September 9, 2016 I reckon it's ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROGER Posted September 9, 2016 #5 Share Posted September 9, 2016 [ Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Meaning. Literal meaning - the perception of beauty is subjective. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecks Posted September 9, 2016 #6 Share Posted September 9, 2016 I wonder the purpose of the peculiar design. Greater minds than my own will have a reason for it but it doesnt appear like the best design for cutting its way through the water.... im thinking its a swedish design and they got it flat packed from ikea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkHunter Posted September 10, 2016 #7 Share Posted September 10, 2016 3 hours ago, Gecks said: I wonder the purpose of the peculiar design. Greater minds than my own will have a reason for it but it doesnt appear like the best design for cutting its way through the water.... im thinking its a swedish design and they got it flat packed from ikea It's for stealth reasons, apparently if the reports are to be believed it has a radar cross section of the size of a fishing boat, assuming average fishing vessel a radar cross section of about 100 ft instead of 600 ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecks Posted September 10, 2016 #8 Share Posted September 10, 2016 2 hours ago, DarkHunter said: It's for stealth reasons, apparently if the reports are to be believed it has a radar cross section of the size of a fishing boat, assuming average fishing vessel a radar cross section of about 100 ft instead of 600 ft. So your saying the design causes it to appear significantly smaller on radar than it actually is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkHunter Posted September 10, 2016 #9 Share Posted September 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Gecks said: So your saying the design causes it to appear significantly smaller on radar than it actually is? Ya, judging from its designs, and I'm no expert on stealth, but the design seems to be going for the same stealth mechanic the F-117 uses by attempting to scatter radar to reduce the detected size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highdesert50 Posted September 20, 2016 #10 Share Posted September 20, 2016 They may share the same names, but I dare say that "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before" is hardly the intent of the naval counterpart. When we mature from the state of living in fear, perhaps then our technology will encourage us to reach out rather than strike out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcin Posted September 21, 2016 #11 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Just think for a second, where could we be by now if we'd invest just a third of what is globally spent on war-machine, into things like discovery, exploration, and overall betterment of our species... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted September 22, 2016 #12 Share Posted September 22, 2016 22 hours ago, Marcin said: Just think for a second, where could we be by now if we'd invest just a third of what is globally spent on war-machine, into things like discovery, exploration, and overall betterment of our species... Possibly speaking Russian, or Chinese. The Japanese didn't spend on military for decades and they didn't get any further ahead then anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted September 22, 2016 #13 Share Posted September 22, 2016 13 hours ago, DieChecker said: Possibly speaking Russian, or Chinese. The Japanese didn't spend on military for decades and they didn't get any further ahead then anyone else. The fudge? Come on Die Checker, you know better! First Marcin said 'globally spent', so it would hypothetically apply to everybody, Russians and Chinese as well. Afraid of the commies? Why did you arbitrarily chose those two countries and the last 40 years? We could all speak German as well. Or French, if Napoleon wouldn't have lost. Or Spanish, would the Invicible Armada not have been sunk by those storms. Second, I don't understand what you mean about Japan. When are you referring to? When in 1853 commodore Perry of the US navy forced them out of their self imposed isolationism? Or after WWII, when USA prohibited them to have an army nor a navy (up until today)? And they even have to fight Godzilla! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted September 27, 2016 #14 Share Posted September 27, 2016 On 9/22/2016 at 1:39 PM, Parsec said: The fudge? Come on Die Checker, you know better! First Marcin said 'globally spent', so it would hypothetically apply to everybody, Russians and Chinese as well. Afraid of the commies? Why did you arbitrarily chose those two countries and the last 40 years? We could all speak German as well. Or French, if Napoleon wouldn't have lost. Or Spanish, would the Invicible Armada not have been sunk by those storms. Second, I don't understand what you mean about Japan. When are you referring to? When in 1853 commodore Perry of the US navy forced them out of their self imposed isolationism? Or after WWII, when USA prohibited them to have an army nor a navy (up until today)? And they even have to fight Godzilla! Ahhh... Globally... Yes, in fairy tale world, yes, we'd be a lot better off. If there were no Stalins, or Hitlers, or others who desired power over advancement of the human race. What are the odds that's going to happen. We might as well discuss what we'd do with bigfoot and Nessie, because finding them isn't (probably) going to happen either. My point was that without the US, and Western Europe spending on military, Hitler would have rolled over everyone and all of Europe and likely the US, would be speaking German right now. Same thing with the Russians right after WW2, if we'd not spent what we did, likely the Russians (Soviets actually) would have achieved a world wide hegemony. Military spending directly resulted in the retention of liberty and freedom for hundreds of millions of people. As to the Japanese.... We do see advancement out of them, but not any more then the US. It would appear to me that their achievements parallel their economy, just like the US does. However they spend 1% or less on their military (GDP), while the US and most other nations spend between 2% and 4%. So, the point that we'd be more advanced if we spent less doesn't seem to actually be fiscally shown to be true. Perhaps.... If we did spend 2% less (Total military spending GDP of the world per year) that would bring us 2% faster discovery of how to defeat cancer, or diabetes. However, I've not seen proof of that yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted September 28, 2016 #15 Share Posted September 28, 2016 On 9/27/2016 at 4:41 AM, DieChecker said: Ahhh... Globally... Yes, in fairy tale world, yes, we'd be a lot better off. If there were no Stalins, or Hitlers, or others who desired power over advancement of the human race. What are the odds that's going to happen. We might as well discuss what we'd do with bigfoot and Nessie, because finding them isn't (probably) going to happen either. My point was that without the US, and Western Europe spending on military, Hitler would have rolled over everyone and all of Europe and likely the US, would be speaking German right now. Same thing with the Russians right after WW2, if we'd not spent what we did, likely the Russians (Soviets actually) would have achieved a world wide hegemony. Military spending directly resulted in the retention of liberty and freedom for hundreds of millions of people. As to the Japanese.... We do see advancement out of them, but not any more then the US. It would appear to me that their achievements parallel their economy, just like the US does. However they spend 1% or less on their military (GDP), while the US and most other nations spend between 2% and 4%. So, the point that we'd be more advanced if we spent less doesn't seem to actually be fiscally shown to be true. Perhaps.... If we did spend 2% less (Total military spending GDP of the world per year) that would bring us 2% faster discovery of how to defeat cancer, or diabetes. However, I've not seen proof of that yet. Still, it looks like you are missing Marcin's point once again. Only because to you it's a waste of time thinking about such a "fairy tale", it doesn't mean you have to dismiss it like that. He was obviously talking about an absurd possibility, we sadly know things work differently. Although a lot of military research have civilian applications after some years, it's debatable if the technological improvement wouldn't be the same without the military "stage". Bear in mind, he didn't talk about cancer or diabetes, but "things like discovery, exploration, and overall betterment of our species". Are you really saying that if we'd globally spent even only 1% of the global GDP in marine research for instance, now we wouldn't know better our oceans, what lies in its trenches and marine life in general? And please try to see things from a perspective that's not only USA-centric. If Germany wouldn't have spent all that money and resources in weapons and military, we probably would have never had a WWII and possibly there would still be a Third Reich in today's Germany. So your comment is pointless. And let's be frank, we have to equally thank the US and USSR if today we don't all speak German. Again, having USSR investing so much in military probably allowed for a more balanced and diverse world, rather than having only one superpower alone to rule it. Do you really think that all the states in South America are happy with the US messing with them? Do you think they enjoyed liberty and freedom thanks to the dictatorships sponsored by the USA? About Japan, advancement in what precisely? It's quite a broad and generic term. How do you define advancement? In robotics? The Japanese robot kicked US robot's ass in the match they "fought". In videogames and consoles? Playstation wins on Xbox. In Oceanography? Right now there's a Japanese ship sailing in the Pacific Ocean and aimed to drill in the Earth's crust in order to see how extrem conditions can extremophilies sustain, so to better set future space missions that will look for life signs. And once more, I remind you that Japan doesn't have an army, since the USA decided so at the end of WWII. More precisely, they only have the self-defence forces, created in 1954 by USA and used only as a mean, as the name implies, to self defend the nation in case of attack from an enemy country (once USSR, today China). So, again, your reasoning has weak basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted September 29, 2016 #16 Share Posted September 29, 2016 9 hours ago, Parsec said: Still, it looks like you are missing Marcin's point once again. Only because to you it's a waste of time thinking about such a "fairy tale", it doesn't mean you have to dismiss it like that. He was obviously talking about an absurd possibility, we sadly know things work differently. Although a lot of military research have civilian applications after some years, it's debatable if the technological improvement wouldn't be the same without the military "stage". Bear in mind, he didn't talk about cancer or diabetes, but "things like discovery, exploration, and overall betterment of our species". Are you really saying that if we'd globally spent even only 1% of the global GDP in marine research for instance, now we wouldn't know better our oceans, what lies in its trenches and marine life in general? And please try to see things from a perspective that's not only USA-centric. If Germany wouldn't have spent all that money and resources in weapons and military, we probably would have never had a WWII and possibly there would still be a Third Reich in today's Germany. So your comment is pointless. And let's be frank, we have to equally thank the US and USSR if today we don't all speak German. Again, having USSR investing so much in military probably allowed for a more balanced and diverse world, rather than having only one superpower alone to rule it. Do you really think that all the states in South America are happy with the US messing with them? Do you think they enjoyed liberty and freedom thanks to the dictatorships sponsored by the USA? About Japan, advancement in what precisely? It's quite a broad and generic term. How do you define advancement? In robotics? The Japanese robot kicked US robot's ass in the match they "fought". In videogames and consoles? Playstation wins on Xbox. In Oceanography? Right now there's a Japanese ship sailing in the Pacific Ocean and aimed to drill in the Earth's crust in order to see how extrem conditions can extremophilies sustain, so to better set future space missions that will look for life signs. And once more, I remind you that Japan doesn't have an army, since the USA decided so at the end of WWII. More precisely, they only have the self-defence forces, created in 1954 by USA and used only as a mean, as the name implies, to self defend the nation in case of attack from an enemy country (once USSR, today China). So, again, your reasoning has weak basis. Fine, fine, fine... Marcin posted a "What If?" and I responded with a smart alec remark. That's what happened. If all you want is to be correct... fine, fine, fine. If you actually just want to discuss, for entertainment value, then perhaps I'll respond. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted September 29, 2016 #17 Share Posted September 29, 2016 15 hours ago, DieChecker said: Fine, fine, fine... Marcin posted a "What If?" and I responded with a smart alec remark. That's what happened. If all you want is to be correct... fine, fine, fine. If you actually just want to discuss, for entertainment value, then perhaps I'll respond. DieChecker, I like you (as far as a forum poster goes, no weird ideas), that's why I said that you knew better, I meant and do think that. And now you just shown it, kudos to you. Actually I'm interested for entertainment value in your thoughts, so if you care to share, I'll read with interest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now