Slashdot Mirror


Insider's Look at High-Tech High-Speed Navy Vessel

Xidus writes "Computerworld is running an article on the technology behind the US Navy's newest HSV (High Speed Vessel), focusing on interfaces designed to reduce the number of personnel needed on the bridge. Lots of pretty pictures. No word on OSes, although Mozilla is mentioned, and UNIX-ish desktops are visible, along with some nifty virtual-reality tactical displays. Would you like to play a game?"

49 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. off the shelf? by AssProphet · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Nearly every function of the ship, from navigation and steering to engine and damage control, is conducted and monitored using commercial, off-the-shelf hardware and software."

    hmm I guess I've been shopping on the wrong shelves

    1. Re:off the shelf? by Willeh · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's probably because the navy shelves cost 10x as much as regular shelves, not to mention the products on them.

      --
      Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
    2. Re:off the shelf? by Scoria · · Score: 5, Funny

      A similar product is available here.

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    3. Re:off the shelf? by akadruid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Although expensive, there is a lot here that is superior to what is available on civilan shelves. The vessel is just 300' long, but can carry 350 troops, Abrams MBTs and Sea Knights at 35+ knots. And with just 3 people on the bridge. That's a very different shelf.

      Besides, they can remotely control the ship through a Mozilla interface. How cool is that?

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
    4. Re:off the shelf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not everyone gets to window shop at Lockheed.

    5. Re:off the shelf? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Nearly every function of the ship, from navigation and steering to engine and damage control, is conducted and monitored using commercial, off-the-shelf hardware and software."

      LORAN and GPS have been commercially available in civilian navigation systems for ages. Computer navigation and steering is not new. I'm a little surprised that the damage-control isn't customized, but the rest isn't that unusual. In general, a ship is a ship is a ship, and the problem of problems of making it stay afloat and go where you want are the same for military and non-military craft.

    6. Re:off the shelf? by zakezuke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Computer navigation and steering is not new.

      Tell me about it... many modern ships employ the use of electrnoic throttle and rudder controls. Works just fine, unless you pop a fuse, then you're stuck with last speed and rudder settings, at least from the ferries i've seen. You would think they would employ some form of dead man's switch, where throttle is cut in the event this happens, but that would make far too much sense.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    7. Re:off the shelf? by GregWebb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Two silly stories spring to mind. Both are from memory so I can't give precise details and have probably got others wrong. Oh well, they're still funny :-)

      First was a warship patrolling in the Arctic during one of the world wars (think first), and saw an enemy ship in the distance - so fired a torpedo. Problem was, the torpedo's rudder mechanism wasn't designed to handle the cold water and jammed. Described a beautiful arc while the ship carried on steaming ahead and hit the ship that had fired it in the engine room, putting it out of commission for the rest of the war.

      Second was a training vessel running exercises in Portsmouth harbour in the UK. Fairly old ship with a mechanical signalling device from bridge to engine rooms - which jammed at half speed astern, and when attempting to unjam it was stuck on full astern. So, first mate sent down to engine room to countermand the order - made no headway against most of the ship's company bailing out having realised what was happening in a fairly small space too late to stop it. The ship rammed a concrete jetty at something like 15 knots in reverse. This compressed it by several feet and resulted in the only injury - one unfortunate seaman was halfway through a deck hatch at the point of impact and the pressure difference this caused shot him out like a bullet from a gun and quite a way into the air.

      --

      Greg

      (Inside a nuclear plant)
      Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!

    8. Re:off the shelf? by Monsieur+Canard · · Score: 4, Informative

      Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) is both a bane and a boon for the Navy (I'm involved in Navy sub design and have a peripheral exposure to this).

      The biggest advantage is that it allows relatively modern tech to be installed on ships. Back when I started in the late 80's, the fire-control stations on a typical sub had a staggering 64K of RAM. But it takes so long to certify new H/W and S/W that there was typically a 10 year lag betweeen inception and implementation. Now with COTS it's a much shorter turnaround time. The downside is that this stuff is not shock qualified, has an unproven history for long-term shipboard environmental service, and is potentially bug-ridden (don't worry, they don't let COTS equipment launch nukes).

      --
      He took a duck to the face at 250 knots.
    9. Re:off the shelf? by Didian · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Works just fine, unless you pop a fuse, then you're stuck with last speed and rudder settings

      *YAWN* and those new-fangled engines are no good because as soon as you blow a rod you're stuck in the water with no sails. And those sails, don't get me started....in certain seas you can go into irons for days and if you don't have oars....

      Don't even get me started on getting rid of swords in favor of pistols as sidearms!

      --
      "You despise me, don't you?"
      "If I gave you any thought, I probably would."
  2. Would you like to play a game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does it know how to play tic tac toe?

    1. Re:Would you like to play a game? by nonewshere · · Score: 4, Funny

      no
      but I'm sure it knows how to play global thermonuclear war!

  3. Impressive by Stopmotioncleaverman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here's a close-up look at the ship's cutting-edge IT ...followed by a picture of a strange-looking bald man. At first I thought he was the IT.

    Some impressive IT, that, if that's the state of the AI / cyborgs on board.

  4. Well, if it runs linux by Lurker+McLurker · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet SCO aren't going to turn up and demand money.

    --
    Mod parent up!
  5. Join the navy.... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Fire Scout will be flown by a computer operator using a joystick controller in the Combat Information Center

    Finally!!!!! A military carreer for the overweight masses of X-box, Nintendo and PlayStation owning couch-potatos.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Join the navy.... by AdamTheBastard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But what if the US went to war with China or India? All your sub no longer belong to US, all you sub belong to China or India.

    2. Re:Join the navy.... by AlecC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Finally!!!!! A military carreer for the overweight masses of X-box, Nintendo and PlayStation owning couch-potatos.

      Not so far out as you might think. This may be Urban Legend (tell me if so), but there is a tale of exactly this.

      About 20 years ago, in the days of Pac-Man and similar, when computer games were only available in bars and arcades, the people building the North Sea oil rigs were having trouble: the Remote Operated Vehicles they used for deep-water inspection and minor repairs were too difficult for the operators to control. So they sent out recruiters to hire the top players in the arcades of Aberdeen. And, allegedly, it worked: the arcade warriors were much better ROV operators than the serious engineers.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  6. Netzero? by 222 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ["Currently, the USS La Salle has a 3Mbit connection. We think we can get a 6Mbit connection and up to 24Mbit using accelerators," said Dick Pearson, a systems engineering consultant at Dataline Inc.]
    Yea, i think netzero tried to sell me on that crap about six months ago :p

  7. Pictures of the ship by zz99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can see the ship from the outside here and here

    1. Re:Pictures of the ship by zz99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...and for a few more you can just google some

    2. Re:Pictures of the ship by devnullkac · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you want to see more than a few exterior shots, try this PDF from the manufacturer. Page 6 has some nice deck by deck diagrams with lots of info if you zoom in real close. The helo storage bay is a nice touch.

      --
      What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
  8. Hmmm... Who mans the fire hoses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hope they have lots of armor around the servers, and a backup bridge.

    "uses paperless charts"

    It worries me that China is working on an anti-satellite warfare, and the military keeps marching down the GPS for everything road. WWIII could see a lot of pretty hardware sitting at the docks while the navigator runs down to supply to see if they have any "old fashioned" compasses and charts.

    Oh well. The military knows what they are doing, right?

  9. UNIX-ish desktops? by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Informative

    Where?
    this looks liks windows to me. This even has the windows default titlebar fade action going on.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  10. Its being rented. by BReflection · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Navy is renting this vessel for 11.4 million dollars a year (including operating costs).

    --
    python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
  11. Re:Hmmm... Who mans the fire hoses? by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm sure they have old-school backup plans and navigational equipment. The option not to would be total stupidity in an age of electronic warfare.

    Also, I hope these servers are protected against EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) bombs.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  12. Re:This is not cool. by Dr+Cool · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But see, the idea is that (hopefully) other countries will follow suit and build automated, unmanned, killing machines too. Then if war ever breaks out, it'll be our machines against their machines with a bunch of 14- to 35-year-old guys controlling the action from an RTS-style interface. We'll televise the results and both countries will make a fortune in advertising revenue. Boom-pow, everybody's happy!

  13. Damage Control by DaRat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reducing the number of people required to man the ship is great and all, but, if memory serves, one of the debates about reducing the number of people required to man the ship is the subsequent reduction in number of people available for damage control. If the ship takes damage and there aren't enough (remaining) people able to control the damage, the ship is even more likely to be out of the fight or even lost completely.

    1. Re:Damage Control by Phanatic1a · · Score: 5, Informative

      Absolute and total bollocks.

      Take the number of modern-navy ships sunk by battle damage post-Vietnam. Now take the number damaged post-Vietnam. The latter is considerably greater than the former. I'll work backwards a bit here, but I might get a few transposed.

      USS Cole: Kamikaze floating bomb. Sealifted home, repaired.

      USS Princeton: Mine impact, with sympathetic detonation of a second nearby mine. Severe structural damage, fires, cracked superstructure, flooded magazine. Ship was capable of conducting air action within two hours, stayed on station as local AAW command vessel for an additional 30 hours until relieved.

      USS Samuel B. Roberts: Mine impact. Sealifted home and repaired.

      USS Stark: Two Exocet strikes, with one missile detonation. Sailed home under her own power, and repaired.

      Damage control is the difference between the Stark, which took two Exocets and sailed home, and the HMS Sheffield, which took a single dud Exocet, burned from stem to stern, and sunk under tow. It is taken *exteremely* seriously by the US Navy, and while we don't plate ships with inches of steel armor any more, rest assured that a lot of money is spent on redundant systems, DC training, shock-hardening, and "armor of form" to allow ships to continue fighting after they get hit, and to make it home for repairs. Even if we're not talking about combat, there are all sorts of Bad Things that can happen to ships. Take a look at the Belknap(collided with the Kennedy, fuel spill, fire, basically burned down to the waterline), the Forrestal, or the Enterprise for examples.

      It's accidents like those that drove home how unbelieveably important damage control is. Yes, if a Mach 2+ SS-N-19 delivers its 750 kilogram warhead successfully, the ship's a definite mission-kill at the least. But there are a whole host of less-destructive situations that can result in disaster with bad DC, so DC is considered somewhat...important. No, damage control isn't what it was in WW2: It's a helluva lot better.

    2. Re:Damage Control by Phanatic1a · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please, do not mod popular misunderstanding as "informative."

      The Sheffield's superstructure was not aluminum, it was solid steel, like her hull, and like the superstructure and hull of all Type 42s.

      And, no, the missile did not detonate.

      What made the fire so catastrophic was not the mythical aluminum superstructure, but rather than the missile severed the fire mains, making shipboard firefight all but impossible.

  14. Re:This is not cool. by kale77in · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As long as there are men making weapons, there will be war.

    So your argument is what? -- That defenselessness will always lead to peace and never function (as it has historically) as a magnet for risk-free aggression? "Those that will not bear swords can still die on them" (Tolkien)

  15. Dear Peace-nik, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am a Nigerian Colonel,... just kidding. I am writing this in the hopes that I might spare you the horror of your own hypocrisy.

    Please cease the use of any of the following: Computers, all frequency hopping radios such as a cellphone, any device making use of transistors of any sort, aluminum cans, modern four wheel drive vehicals, any civil project which might have involved explosives (most roads, power generated by dams, and possibly drinking water), weather forecasts produced with aid of any satellites/computers/radar (ie all of them), trauma medicine, some insecticides, nuclear medicine, nuclear power (which provides a major fraction of the worlds power needs), underwater and space exploration, and, of course, any political system that doesn't involve you being the wholly owned an insignificant subject of someone else.

    If those pump parts were badly needed in a village important to the people outside of it, they'd have the resources to buy them. And since I don't see you putting your money where your mouth is, feel free to start leading by example we'll follow along at our earliest convienence. It says something that a 9 year old in the US has a great enough availability of resources that he can get a well built in Africa where the native africans can't.

    FYI War pre-dates weapons. Weapons were invented to settle wars quicker. It turns out that while a person can beat another to death with their bare hands, it's exhausting, and time consuming.

    Maybe the problem is there just aren't enough american nine yearolds. That must be it.

    And so concludes this episode of Oversimplification Theater.

  16. Re:Dual hulled... by Fortress · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The advantages of a dual hull in a ship of this size outweigh the disadvantages. A multihull rocks less in rough seas, giving it a more stable platform for operating helicopters, maintaining satellite links, launching weapons, etc.

    It's also more maneuverable due to having its twin screws so widely separated. Forward on one screw and reverse on the other and the ship comes about in its own length (pretty much).

    The ship also doesn't need to be ballasted in the same manner as a monohull, because of the inherent stability of its broad beam.

    The disadvantages include the inability to right itself if capsized and a more complex compartment layout.

  17. Re:Hmmm... Who mans the fire hoses? by eclectro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Also, I hope these servers are protected against EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) bomb

    With everything being "off the shelf" hardware, how much emp it can take is a good question. There are test facilities.

    I can understand mil-rad hardened transistors surviving, but all that stuff clearly has to use low voltage CMOS that can be blown if there is a nearby lightning strike.

    I think most worrisome is a computer glitch (not to mention a bullet) hitting the right server at the right place to cause the ship to be dead in the water because engine/navigation controls don't work.

    If it could bring down an Osprey helicopter, one has to wonder about ships also.

    Being the military, they probably (or should) have taken such things into account when deploying the systems.

    You also have to wonder how much time they spend patching all the software.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  18. Re:Dual hulled... by mcdurdin · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can tell you from personal experience that they are pretty damned unpleasant in even 3m swells... At least half of the passengers (including myself) quite sick.

    This boat is an Incat fast ferry, built in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Incat have made about 40% of the large fast catermaran ferries around the world.

    They used to run an Incat ferry across Bass Strait from Tasmania to mainland Australia. It would get from Devonport (Tasmania) to Melbourne in about 6 hours - the traditional ferries took 14 hours. Quite a difference, and it's really neat being on a boat that size when it starts moving. However, Bass Strait has some pretty impressively bad weather (try looking for Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race to get an idea)... The Incat ferries were just not suited to it (for the general public, anyway).

    They can still move quickly if you don't mind lots of extremely sick people on board (soldiers are supposed to be tough, right?). Incat have won (and currently hold) the trans-Atlantic Blue Riband (Hales Trophy) (and have actually won it three times - usually while delivering their ferries!) - with an average speed of 38.8 knots (about 72km/h)

  19. No AOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    You can see the AOL "Accelerator" in one of the screen shots I think.

  20. I've been on it. by Padrino121 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was on it for some experiments in 02 and it was a real impressive boat. The vessel is a proof of concept for what a future command and control ship would be like. Basically the budget is large and they throw everything they can on it to see what good solutions come out.

    Not to be outdone the Army also has it's on vessel aptly called the TSV (Theater Support Vessel).

    On the HSV the exercise servers/work stations run Windows, if there were "UNIX-ish" systems there they must have been hiding.

    The boat itself is sweet, actually very similar to the "Cat" in Maine. That's the ferry from Nova Scotia to Bar Harbor with a top speed of 55(?) knots or so.

  21. Keeping Sealanes Open by N8F8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The primary role of the US Navy in peacetime is to keep the sealanes open. The only reason you can get those Reeboks for $30 is because the US ensures safe shipping throught the world. Even so, piracy is on the rise since most European nations have killed their navies and the availability of small watercraft in third word countries is greater.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  22. pretty screenshots are all very well... by markandrew · · Score: 5, Informative

    I used to work in military research here in the UK, and worked on a project not *too* dissimilar to the COMBATSS/InfoScene bit mentioned in this article (I probably shouldn't divulge exactly how similar or not, for obvious reasons :) ). At least, from the brief mention in the article, it seems to be a similar kind of system, in principle at least.

    Our stuff was written as a kind of proof of concept, with a fairly basic GUI (x/motif iirc), and most of the work being done on the data processing to ensure it was an accurate representation of reality.

    we once had a meeting with a team from the US who were working on a similar system to our own, the plan being to see if we could benefit from each other's work. they gave us a demonstration of their product, which initially seemed much closer to completion than our own. it had a beautiful 3D interface (much like the screen shot in the article) and they demonstrated how a user could easily pan round in real time and see what was happening with a simple drag-and-click of the mouse.

    then we asked them about how they actually processed the data, as this was the most important part of the system (obviously, no matter how good the interface it's a bit pointless if the stuff you're looking at is just plain wrong), which is where things fell apart a little. the actual backend of their system had hardly been started - the stuff we were seeing was all manufactured data created for demos, which kind of negated the entire point of the exercise from our point of view. they had a much larger team working with a much bigger budget than we did, but had effectively just come up with a nice GUI - and it didn't actually do anything that our basic motif GUI didn't, it just had more colours and more 3D stuff. we weren't really interested after that...

    the point being that even in the military, even if something looks great on screen is no indication of whether it's actually any use or not. our system was actually deployed and used (on a testing basis) by the UK armed forces - what became of it since then i couldn't say as i got another job soon after, but it was clear that the US system was many months behind our own in terms of usefulness.

    and on a slight tangent...

    the whole thing reminds me of the well publicised FIST system that was featured on UK TV a few years back - basically trying to bring the infantry soldier into the 21st century using in-helmet HUDs and super smart targeting/comms systems etc... it was developed at the same place I worked but had so many problems i think it was shelved - after huge spending. but then, it did use windows as the underlying OS (don't ask me why), which for a mission-critical system always seemed a bit... stupid.

    I often wonder for some of these things whether they were instigated by military ppl out of necessity or genuine improvement, or by politicians who just want things to look good

    1. Re:pretty screenshots are all very well... by MrIrwin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      One thing I have learnt fair and square in my current job is that good screens are the **only** thing that matters.

      I cannot understate this......everybody knows that a product with pretty screenshots is easier to sell than an ugly one even if the ugly one is much better at doing what it is supposed to do......but real world experiences have shown me that if a software is pretty it does not even need to do anything at all!

      I'm not joking here, I have seen software that has been sold and initially installed purely on the basis of a simulated user interface. Management are happy because it looks pretty, and users just carry doing thier job with "the old system" until such time as the "bugs are ironed out" in the new system. Put another way, a total lack of functional code is just a bug, whilst lack of a pretty screenshot is lack of product.

      I hestitate to say this is wrong, however. When I go and look at the home page of a new software package one of the first things I look at is the screenshot, and I rarely look at the todo list or "Known issues" until I have actually installed!

      --

      And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)

  23. Re:This is not cool. by eclectro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All of that technology, to serve what end? Killing people.......As long as there are men making weapons, there will be war.

    No military weapons were involved when some islamic terrorists drove airplanes into the World Trade Centers and Pentagon killing 3000 people.

    In fact, they didn't even use guns, but "box cutters".

    Perhaps a more accurate statement would be "as long as there are men, there will be war".

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  24. Technology & Ships by pararox · · Score: 5, Informative

    In a bid to clear to my mind of the cobwebs, I took ~1 year off, and worked as a deck hand aboard a 656 foot shipping vessel (as a merchant marine).

    At the time, I was mid-way through completion of a computer science degree, which I am currently finishing. I was completely shocked by the lack of pervasive computing on board the ship - a complex environment, where any and all silicon help could prove to be highly advantageous.

    Two newly acquired computers, running NaviSailor were onboard, and provided (what most of my fellow mates/luddites took as) advanced information in a no-hassel manner.

    There is a great deal of money to be made in the shipping business. It is a complex and intricate profession, and most of the people onboard shipping vessels exhibit a great degree of perfectionism. Afterall, wrecking a multi-million dollar ship with hundreds of thousands of dollars of onboard cargo would be quite disasterous to one's career.

    The long and the short is that these people need attention. Here is a niche market ripe for the taking. Custom software geared towards making watches, navigation, and docking less error prone has yet to be made. All you who complain of a lack of work -- that fattest worms are found only by lifting the heavier stones.

    -pararox-

  25. Re:Hmmm... Who mans the fire hoses? by AlecC · · Score: 5, Informative

    As I understand it, these ships are basically a Faraday Cage to start with. Because of the possibility of NBC warfare, the ships are basically competely sealed. Note that the steering picture only shows computer screens, not windows. There are no portholes, and donly the minimum number of external walkways for mooring etc. All doors are RFI tight. So all you need to do is make all the (many) cable ports EMP proof (not easy, but feasible) asnd the ship is EMP tolerant. You need spares for all the bits outside the shell (CCTV cameras, Antenna amplifiers), but inside the shell, lofe (and war) continues as usual.

    EMP is not now a new threat. You can bet the Navy have thought of it.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  26. Agility and cunning vs. raw power by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks cool. I always wondered why navies never seemed to use multi-hulled ships, given their speed and handling characteristics. I guess in the days when all that mattered was the size of your gun and the thickness of your armour, it was a bit irrelevent.

    If the rules are changing and speed/tactical operations are the New Way, I wonder whether high manoeuvrability "tanks" will be back on the agenda as well, then? They were never much good in the old days, when the accuracy of your opponent's gun was so bad that even if you dodged you might take an unlucky hit anyway (when armour would still protect you, of course) but if we're all about agile units able to get in and out quickly and stealthily now...?

    Incidentally, am I the only one who spotted loads of cool things about the ship in the original article... except for any offensive capability (other than via aircraft)? If it's a multi-role vessel, you'd have thought it would carry some sort of firepower, even if only for self-defence!

    If you'd have to kill me, don't tell me. :o)

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Agility and cunning vs. raw power by duffbeer703 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The current new wave in naval thinking is that missiles and aircraft have rendered major warships with guns and defensive systems obsolete.

      The Soviets were the first ones to realize that a $500,000 50' cutter (say a Namchuka class missile corvette) with a big anti-ship missile could disable or sink a $20 billion aircraft carrier. Of course a heavy machine gun could sink the ship, but Soviet sailors were just conscripts anyway.

      As unsexy as it is, they have a point. A modern aircraft carrier battle groups is vulnerable to attack and has to stay as far as 500 miles offshore to avoid shore-based missile batteries. A single SCUD missile with a big nuke could disable an entire US CVG.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  27. win2k is allowed by SHEENmaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    but it loses its high-security status if you install any recent patches.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  28. Heh. by Stormshadow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Would read the article if I could, evidentally slashdotted to heck and back...

    As a squid who has actually been on board...and whose command was thinking about claiming the ship as our flagship to replace our old one(Gogo Second Fleet!) One interesting fact: The HSV Swift ... is not a US ship! In fact, it's leased from the Australian navy. Go figure. Of course, this could be covered in the article but see above disclaimer.
    Between that, and the fact that there's essentially no armor or weapons, I'd personally prefer not to serve on that ship, but then again the final designs that the Navy would have built would presumably be able to take some kind of beating and dish a bit back out.

  29. BS propagation. by master_p · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The U.S. Navy has a new ship in its fleet that officers say may be the most technologically advanced vessel produced to date, with IT capabilities that are revolutionizing naval warfare and may play a vital role in responding to potential terrorist attacks in the U.S.

    Officers would say anything to promote their plans. But how such a fine military vessel can play a vital role in responding to potential terrorist attacks, is beyond me. Terrorists most usually attack by carrying explosives with them, into crouded places, or drive ground and air vehicles into their targets. The one exception of sea terrorism that comes to mind is USS Cole, but the vessel described above would be incapable of preventing the USS Cole bombing the way it happened.

    When the military talks about terrorism, I run away. They usually talk in order to keep the money coming in. Otherwise, terrorism is something that secret and intelligent services deal with, not the military. The military is unable to defend against terrorism; it can only defend against visible enemies. Terrorism is invisible, especially if t is low tech.

    By the way, does the new vessel use Microsoft Windows ? There was an incident, back then, about a US military ship that went dead because of a Windows network bug that propagated itself to all the ship's servers, causing the ship to be dead for over two hours.

  30. Re:Hmmm... Who mans the fire hoses? by edremy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh well. The military knows what they are doing, right?

    Actually, in many cases they do.

    Speaking as an ex-tanker, tank gunnery qualification involves numerous "degraded mode" exercises. Some engagements you have everything- computer, thermal sight, rangefinder, healthy gunner, etc. For others you only have parts of that, or perhaps just the backup optical telescope with an aiming reticule (M105D for my tank).

    Very very smart. Then again, I knew a fair number of gunners who *only* used the M105D in every daylight exercise, no matter what they were allowed to use. (It's obviously useless at night) They generally got good scores- you can guesstimate the target distance pretty well and with a bit of windage correction you can get shots off a lot faster than with all the bells and whistles.

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  31. They already exist by hellfire · · Score: 3, Informative

    If the rules are changing and speed/tactical operations are the New Way, I wonder whether high manoeuvrability "tanks" will be back on the agenda as well, then?

    Okay, so I watch the History Channel and I love Mail Call with R. Lee Ermey. The fact is that there ARE high speed "tanks" of a sort. The army and marines both have light attack vehicles which are fasted and armored, but not nearly as well fortified as a M1A1. The Marine's main assault vehicle is in fact amphibious, useful for beach landings and fording rivers. The Marine's vehicle is also wheeled and mounts a 30 mm gun, much smaller than the devastating gun mounted on the M1A1.

    I wish I had links for you, but those types of tanks have been in existence for years. The navy may be behind a bit because with the size and cost of the craft, the development cycle of new naval tech is often a little longer.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"