RE: [FT]SML question

At 8:31 PM -0400 6/18/01, Aaron Teske wrote:
>
>Hmm, meant to add in the bit that, while they're more for offshore 
>ops on someone else's coast, there's no reason they couldn't hang 
>around our own as well.  It's just that, at the moment, there's no 
>operational reason for them to do so -- even during the Cold War you 
>sent the attack subs out to find the boomers well before they got 
>that close....

If we're worrying about our Littoral that much (full on combat vs 
customs/border patrol) then the cow waste has hit the HVAC system.

>>Small combatants tend to have a hard time self deploying to the 
>>other side of the Ocean. They can do it, but they aren't as nearly 
>>fast or seaworthy.
>
><grin> That's generally what makes a littoral ship, no?  Anything 
>larger tends to be considered a regular Navy ship...?
>

Well, the new DD-21 Zumwalts are meant to work in the littoral as 
they'll have dedicated shore support weapons. Certainly a sea going 
ship, but not exactly a small craft.

http://dd21.crane.navy.mil/dd21.htm

I seem to recall one version of some DD having a well deck, but I may 
be mistaken.

Speaking of small craft...There is an excerpt on Janes about a new 
Russian FAC..

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jni/jni010614_1_n.shtml

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		 ----------	      SW1025 H -
-   Internet Technologies  --  Data Center Manager (3N &10S)   -
- ryan.gill@turner.com			 rmgill@mindspring.com -
-		   www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- C&R-FFL -	  The gunshow loophole isn't		 - NRA -
-	     keep federal laws out of private lives	       -