Polywell FoI: grounds for appeal:

[ladajo]

Kiteman is correct. Proprietary is protected.
The argument lays in what info was claimed as proprietary at the time of the FOIA filing.
This also has been argued both ways in court.
It would surprise me greatly if EMC2 would go to court over this. I am not sure if it would be them against the government, the government against me, or some kind of wierd three way. I guess it depends on what comes out of the DC office upon appeal processing.

[Josh Cryer]

Arguments against FoIA. I've seen it all.

[KitemanSA]

Arguments against FoIA. I've seen it all.

I suppose some folks are arguing AGAINST a FoI request all together. Not me. I am agruing in favor of a differently directed FoI request. I suspect that general reports like the ones requested may contain substantial proprietary info. I suggested asking for specific data sets. At least then there would be some data to gnaw on!

[MSimon]

We are wasting effort on semantics. If we had a time machine we could just find out what happened. If we could go forward that would be nice.

So I propose we end this petty bickering and build a time machine. If we could get it done in under 3 years the results would be useful.

Any way building a time machine would be more productive.

[vankirkc]

That is their point. They believe that ARE entitled to the info.

It's more than a belief. It's a fact.

You are incorrect. You may be entitled to SOME data generated at a government lab, and you may be entitled to SOME data that is purchaced via a government contract but you are NOT entitled to proprietary company information, period, end of story.
If you don't believe me, take it to court. Good luck!

Well, if you're correct that EMC2 owns the rights to Polywell technology lock stock and barrel, then I'm writing my congressman to get them to stop sending my money. They can finance their own project.

[MSimon]

It's more than a belief. It's a fact.

You are incorrect. You may be entitled to SOME data generated at a government lab, and you may be entitled to SOME data that is purchaced via a government contract but you are NOT entitled to proprietary company information, period, end of story.
If you don't believe me, take it to court. Good luck! :roll:

Well, if you're correct that EMC2 owns the rights to Polywell technology lock stock and barrel, then I'm writing my congressman to get them to stop sending my money. They can finance their own project.

Ah. But the US Navy wants the project bad enough to spend the money to hurry it along. And $15 million is not a bad bet against cutting the Naval oil budget by 50% to 90% depending on how you count aircraft fuel.

Think of reducing oil tanker needs by 60%. Reducing oil logistics by 90%. Fleet operations no longer hampered by the need to refuel the DDs.

Spend the money.

[KitemanSA]

Ah. But the US Navy wants the project bad enough to spend the money to hurry it along. And $15 million is not a bad bet against cutting the Naval oil budget by 50% to 90% depending on how you count aircraft fuel.

Think of reducing oil tanker needs by 60%. Reducing oil logistics by 90%. Fleet operations no longer hampered by the need to refuel the DDs.

Spend the money.

Precisely.

Heck, this may even fit in the Little Cr@ppy Ship.

[ladajo]

Ah. But the US Navy wants the project bad enough to spend the money to hurry it along. And $15 million is not a bad bet against cutting the Naval oil budget by 50% to 90% depending on how you count aircraft fuel.

Think of reducing oil tanker needs by 60%. Reducing oil logistics by 90%. Fleet operations no longer hampered by the need to refuel the DDs.

Spend the money.

Precisely.

Heck, this may even fit in the Little Cr@ppy Ship.

The Little Cr@ppy Ship is actually pretty big. I would call it an FFL/ almost an FFG. I suppose with an ESSM Rig it could be a "G".

V-Hull (LCS1):
Length: 379 ft (115.3 m)
Beam: 57.4 ft (17.5 m)

Tri-Hull (LCS2)
Length: 418ft (127.4 m)
Beam: 104ft (31.6 m)

FFG7:
Length: 453 ft (138 m)
Beam: 45 ft (14 m)

Note the Beam on each. Also the internal "Cube and Square" for the Tri-Hull borderlines on silly huge. Much more than the V-Hull.

[KitemanSA]

Heck, this may even fit in the Little Cr@ppy Ship.

The Little Cr@ppy Ship is actually pretty big. I would call it an FFL/ almost an FFG. I suppose with an ESSM Rig it could be a "G".

V-Hull (LCS1):
Disp: 3000
Length: 379 ft (115.3 m)
Beam: 57.4 ft (17.5 m)

Tri-Hull (LCS2)
Disp: 2200
Length: 418ft (127.4 m)
Beam: 104ft (31.6 m)

FFG7:
Disp: 4100
Length: 453 ft (138 m)
Beam: 45 ft (14 m)

Note the Beam on each. Also the internal "Cube and Square" for the Tri-Hull borderlines on silly huge. Much more than the V-Hull.

Red data added.
These should be more considered a Corvette than a Frigate. The LCSs and Corvettes are Littoral (coastal) ships. Unlike the FFG-7, there are blue-water worthiness questions with both the LCSs. Not sure how well they can perform the long distance "escort" duty of a FFG-7. I may be surprised.

[ladajo]

Note the displacement data for LCS(s) does not include mission module packages.

They carry roughly half the draft. (Thus less dispacement, over increased deck area.)

Rough numbers for arguments sake;

LCS1 rectangled vs draft: 379*57.4=21754.6sqft/3000tons = 7.25sqft/ton at Draft: 12.1 ft (3.7 m)

LCS2 rectangled vs draft: 418*104=43472sqft/2200tons = 19.76sqft/ton at Draft: 13 ft (3.96 m)

FFG7 rectangled vs draft: 453*45=20385sqft/4100tons = 4.97sqft/ton at Draft: 22 ft (6.7 m)

LCS1 sea keeping is projected to be much better than LCS2. LCS2 will probably have deep ocean long swell stress issues, especially at speed. FFG7 for example can handle some pretty serious seas up to 20kts. over 20kts in greater than Sea State 5 produces significant plunging, which in turn can cause hull stress, topside equipment damage, as well as engineering stress on the line shaft and components back to the Main Reduction Gear. The Turbines are gas coupled, and thus are not so effected, but you can still cause overspeeds on prop unloading.
At the end of the day, all Littoral platforms must still get to the projected op area, and that requires a transit. The primary limitter for Mine sweeps is legs/speed/ and seas (ie: mobility). Most hot spots, are planned for a 1 month transit allowance if sweeps are not on station.
I would most definately not call LCS a Corvette by any means. It falls well within FFL territory, if not FFG (given weapons).
These are decidely big.

From wikipedia: "Modern navies began a trend in the late 20th and early 21st century towards smaller, more maneuverable surface capability. Corvettes have a displacement between 540 and 2,750 long tons (550 and 2,800 metric tons) and measure 180–330 feet (55–100 metres) in length."

[MSimon]

I'm from the Old Navy where a Frigate was the size of a light cruiser. And a light cruiser was larger see DLGN and CLGN.

[ladajo]

From Wiki:

Pre-30 June 1975 to Post-30 June 1975
Attack Carrier (CVA/CVAN) to Multimission Carrier (CV/CVN)
Cruiser (CG/CLG) to Cruiser (CG)
Frigate (DL/DLG/DLGN) to Cruiser (CG/CGN) or Destroyer (DDG)
Destroyer (DD/DDG) to Destroyer (DD/DDG)
Ocean Escort (DE/DEG) to Frigate (FF/FFG)
Patrol Frigate (PF) to Frigate (FFG)

A final change came on 1 January 1980, when the Ticonderoga-class destroyers (DDG) became cruisers (CG).


Interesting to note that WWII Destroyers were typically around 2000tons.
FFG (with RAST) 4100tons
Arleigh Burke's run about 9000 tons.
Spruance's about 8000 tons.
Tyco's 9600tons
WWII Cruiser about 10-14000tons
WWII BB 45000tons

We really leapt up in smaller classes actual sizes during the cold war. We build them wider and longer in modern times. Bigger with less people.
Firepower (ship to ship/ship to shore) has gone down as well. the only thing we have really improved is our ability to engage air/submarine targets.

[KitemanSA]

From wikipedia: "Modern navies began a trend in the late 20th and early 21st century towards smaller, more maneuverable surface capability. Corvettes have a displacement between 540 and 2,750 long tons (550 and 2,800 metric tons) and measure 180–330 feet (55–100 metres) in length."

The LCSs are ~3100 and 2300 with mission modules. This is much closer to the 2750 of the corvette than the 4100 of the Frigate. True, they've been super-sized, American Style, but still... AND they are both littoral (coastal) vessels, not blue water. They are corvettes.

Below the bottom end of the corvette size is our USS Cyclone Class (PC-1) Patrol Craft (330 lt)

[vankirkc]

You are incorrect. You may be entitled to SOME data generated at a government lab, and you may be entitled to SOME data that is purchaced via a government contract but you are NOT entitled to proprietary company information, period, end of story.
If you don't believe me, take it to court. Good luck!

Well, if you're correct that EMC2 owns the rights to Polywell technology lock stock and barrel, then I'm writing my congressman to get them to stop sending my money. They can finance their own project.

Ah. But the US Navy wants the project bad enough to spend the money to hurry it along. And $15 million is not a bad bet against cutting the Naval oil budget by 50% to 90% depending on how you count aircraft fuel.

Think of reducing oil tanker needs by 60%. Reducing oil logistics by 90%. Fleet operations no longer hampered by the need to refuel the DDs.

Spend the money.

I'm fine with spending the money, but not on the present terms. If they can prove that it works, in a peer reviewed fashion, then by all means let's finance it. At present, however, it seems as though all the Government (and me by proxy) gets out of this is a loss on their balance sheet.

Under the current terms someone other than the government should be financing the project. If this were some strategic weapon initiative it would be a different story, but it's not. I can't see any reason why this should be done in the way that it is.

[ladajo]

From wikipedia: "Modern navies began a trend in the late 20th and early 21st century towards smaller, more maneuverable surface capability. Corvettes have a displacement between 540 and 2,750 long tons (550 and 2,800 metric tons) and measure 180–330 feet (55–100 metres) in length."

The LCSs are ~3100 and 2300 with mission modules. This is much closer to the 2750 of the corvette than the 4100 of the Frigate. True, they've been super-sized, American Style, but still... AND they are both littoral (coastal) vessels, not blue water. They are corvettes.

Below the bottom end of the corvette size is our USS Cyclone Class (PC-1) Patrol Craft (330 lt)

We talk on LCS a lot at work. We see them as Frigates in all but name.
They are Commander Commands, designed for cross ocean transits and endurance (although LCS2 might break), and support all warfare areas (If we buy all the modules). They are the programmed replacement for FFG's and are requried to support the same mission sets with additions. LCS2 can support way more than LCS1 in embarked modules.

PC's are modern(ish) Gunboats. They are small Corvettes. Not designed for cross ocean transits and endurance, do not support any warfare areas except limited surface and air(only with stingers). This is the role of Corvettes. Limited warfare area ability, and only with plus ups. Never meant to cross a pond. They are also LT and LCDR Commands vice CDR Commands for LCS/FFG/DDG Pond Crossers.

The is also continued pressure to extend the FFG decomms more, as well as drop LCS altogether with a limited build and jump on the USCG National Cutter bandwagon (or variant) as a more cost effective approach. We have great alt packages for FFG's that have been around a while, but not funded, while we have flopped and twitched over the FFG life cycle plan.

The fat lady has not sung, but when she does, whatever comes out of LCS will have to pick up the FFG mission sets. There are not enough DDG and CG hulls to do it, and Amphibs are tapped out as well.