It's a good theory. I would still bet that even the Legend class will come vastly over budget and vastly behind schedule. If 10 billion dollars only got them two 33% finished Constellation class hulls, I can imagine somewhat finished Legend class going out for no less than 2 billion dollars each.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Looks like members of Congress are the services of actual pirates . . . I mean privateers.
For those who are unfamiliar: privateers are effectively "lawful pirates" sanctioned by a state actor and weaponized against foreign shipping.
The concept — unsurprisingly — was pioneered by the English crown, which granted licenses called "letters of marque and reprisal" to privateers, in part so the crown may bolster state coffers by taxing what would have otherwise constituted a capital offense!
Edit/Addition:
What's perhaps even more amusing, yet disturbing is to see sitting members of Congress implicitly acknowledge the pirate nature of their :
However, what will happen if and when someone sinks an American privateer vessel, which will inevitably be largely manned by former and retired, if not reserve American servicemen?
The political, legal and military fallout from a reverse could be entertaining!
For those who are unfamiliar: privateers are effectively "lawful pirates" sanctioned by a state actor and weaponized against foreign shipping.
The concept — unsurprisingly — was pioneered by the English crown, which granted licenses called "letters of marque and reprisal" to privateers, in part so the crown may bolster state coffers by taxing what would have otherwise constituted a capital offense!
Edit/Addition:
What's perhaps even more amusing, yet disturbing is to see sitting members of Congress implicitly acknowledge the pirate nature of their :
However, what will happen if and when someone sinks an American privateer vessel, which will inevitably be largely manned by former and retired, if not reserve American servicemen?
The political, legal and military fallout from a reverse could be entertaining!
Last edited:
They passed down the pirate tradition to their former colonies...
Looks like members of Congress are the services of actual pirates . . . I mean privateers.
For those who are unfamiliar: privateers are effectively "lawful pirates" sanctioned by a state actor and weaponized against foreign shipping.
The concept — unsurprisingly — was pioneered by the English crown, which granted licenses called "letters of marque and reprisal" to privateers, in part so the crown may bolster state coffers by taxing what would have otherwise constituted a capital offense!
There's a good reason why the Anglo-Saxon (if not the Western) civilization is called the "pirate civilization" (海盗文明) in China... Habits truly die hard.
Wanna guess when will these "lawful pirates" magically obtain RPGs and UAVs from the Everglades to target Chinese vessels on international waters next?
If this privateer shenanigans materializes, the would be privateers will most likely be manning refurbished naval or coast guard vessels, or otherwise something big enough to support a helicopter for VBSS operations.
It's probably too late in the game for any would be American privateer to participate in the naval blockade against Venezuela, especially given that a venture of this variety will take time to setup and require CAPEX in the 9, if not 10 figure USD ballpark.
However, if this legislation actually gets pushed through, I could definitely see a few pro-Israel billionaires bankroll some "lawful piracy" against vessels — perhaps even Chinese vessels — taking cargo to and from Iran, and that could get "very interesting," especially given the submarines that Iran operate.
On the other hand if security detail on a cargo ship flips the table on those privateers, wouldn't their vessel become legitimate prize eligible for auction at an admiralty prize court?Looks like members of Congress are the services of actual pirates . . . I mean privateers.
For those who are unfamiliar: privateers are effectively "lawful pirates" sanctioned by a state actor and weaponized against foreign shipping.
The concept — unsurprisingly — was pioneered by the English crown, which granted licenses called "letters of marque and reprisal" to privateers, in part so the crown may bolster state coffers by taxing what would have otherwise constituted a capital offense!
Edit/Addition:
What's perhaps even more amusing, yet disturbing is to see sitting members of Congress implicitly acknowledge the pirate nature of their :
However, what will happen if and when someone sinks an American privateer vessel, which will inevitably be largely manned by former and retired, if not reserve American servicemen?
The political, legal and military fallout from a reverse could be entertaining!
The potential fallout is what makes the proposed privateer legislation rather problematic, yet highly entertaining! *crossing my fingers*
Keep in mind that there are only so many places where you can learn to execute VBSS operations, so would be privateers are almost all going to be former, retired or reserve members of the US military.
What's going to happen politically, legally and militarily if the Iranian or Russian navy or a Chinese security company captures or kills some American privateers by the dozen or hundred?!
Lethe
Captain
Further excavations re: Soviet influence on DDG-51 hull form:
So we have detailed investigation of seakeeping characteristics of Soviet combatants and an articulation of shortfall in seakeeping performance of existing USN surface combatants, relative to both Soviet and unspecified allied ships, amidst the gestation of DDG-51, which is said to have made considerable improvements in that regard. But it is the following article that establishes the more direct link between these items that Norman Friedman makes in U.S. Destroyers:
With that, I'm satisfied to accept Friedman's assertion that the hull form for DDG-51 was inspired by observation of Soviet combatant hullforms. Though, notably, DDG-51 did not ultimately make use fin stabilizers as suggested above.
As an aside, one interesting theme that emerged while trawling through these and other related articles is an asserted similarity between Soviet and Italian design practices. 1984 article posits designing the then-developmental Arleigh Burke-class destroyer according to Italian design practices, and observes that one of the major differences between U.S. and Italian (and Soviet) practice is that the former incorporates much greater margins for growth both in design and in-service phases. If this carries through to the present day, it has obvious implications for what happened with Constellation amidst NAVSEA's fiddling.
So we have detailed investigation of seakeeping characteristics of Soviet combatants and an articulation of shortfall in seakeeping performance of existing USN surface combatants, relative to both Soviet and unspecified allied ships, amidst the gestation of DDG-51, which is said to have made considerable improvements in that regard. But it is the following article that establishes the more direct link between these items that Norman Friedman makes in U.S. Destroyers:
With that, I'm satisfied to accept Friedman's assertion that the hull form for DDG-51 was inspired by observation of Soviet combatant hullforms. Though, notably, DDG-51 did not ultimately make use fin stabilizers as suggested above.
As an aside, one interesting theme that emerged while trawling through these and other related articles is an asserted similarity between Soviet and Italian design practices. 1984 article posits designing the then-developmental Arleigh Burke-class destroyer according to Italian design practices, and observes that one of the major differences between U.S. and Italian (and Soviet) practice is that the former incorporates much greater margins for growth both in design and in-service phases. If this carries through to the present day, it has obvious implications for what happened with Constellation amidst NAVSEA's fiddling.
Last edited:
Truly late stage british empire behaviour, US gonna 'arm' yet another group this time in the oceans and it turns against their interests/backfires in...3...2...1..
"The U.S. Navy has confirmed to TWZ that the armament package for its first “flight” of its will not include a built-in Vertical Launch System (VLS). There had been widespread questions about whether the ships would include a VLS array with no such feature readily apparent."
Confirmed.