Author Topic: Naval Pictures Forecastle: Laying siege to the poop deck! (Read 251695 times)

Weirdo · « **on:** 12 August 2017, 16:36:48 »

New thread, more ships!

Wrangler · « **Reply #1 on:** 12 August 2017, 16:58:29 »

Underway, ship colors for the thread!

HMS Unicorn!

Daryk · « **Reply #2 on:** 12 August 2017, 17:40:49 »

It's "shift colors", actually. When moored, the flag is flown from the fantail. Underway, it's moved to a higher point amidships (I hesitate to say "mast" these days).

Liam's Ghost · « **Reply #3 on:** 12 August 2017, 19:49:31 »

A mess of destroyers alongside the destroyer tender Dobbin. From left to right, we have the Hull, Dewey (my grampa's ship during the war), Macdonough, and Worden (all Farragut class), and the Phelps (Porter class)

Daryk · « **Reply #4 on:** 12 August 2017, 20:22:29 »

???

I don't see a picture...

Liam's Ghost · « **Reply #5 on:** 12 August 2017, 20:23:16 »

Quote from: Daryk on 12 August 2017, 20:22:29

???

I don't see a picture...

Odd. It shows up fine for me. Anybody know what I did wrong?

Feenix74 · « **Reply #6 on:** 12 August 2017, 22:03:32 »

Not sure what the deal (I cannot see the image in your original post either) but if I cut and paste your link into another Chrome tab I can see it and if I link it like below I can see it when I preview this post.

Edit - Now that I have done that, it now shows up in your original post. Very strange . . .

Wrangler · « **Reply #7 on:** 12 August 2017, 22:12:24 »

I've had this happen before. It sometimes requires the viewer to have gone to the website directly so it's loaded into the browser. I would recommend downloading the picture and uploading via Attachment option.

A trick you can do also once you have it uploaded and posted again. Copy the link you uploaded attachment and then re-edit the post.

Using the Insert Image button you can post the picture here.

David CGB · « **Reply #8 on:** 13 August 2017, 00:08:02 »

Quote from: Wrangler on 12 August 2017, 16:58:29

Underway, ship colors for the thread!

HMS Unicorn!

nice picture

Fat Guy · « **Reply #9 on:** 13 August 2017, 07:00:45 »

New thread underway, new ship underway:

CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford underway on her own power.

Kidd · « **Reply #10 on:** 13 August 2017, 07:24:12 »

Re: posts on previous thread on submarine engine spaces,

this is the manoeuvring room of 1971 Cold War French SSBN Le Redoutable

these 2 are from the manoeuvring room of a US Virginia-class SSN

and this is a model ("it's only a model...") of what a reactor compartment might look like.

A Scottish drone enthusiast landed his drone on the flight deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth and is catching some flak for it. Video is less than 2 minutes and does not feature the landing, but is quite nice all the same.

https://www.facebook.com/BlackIsleImages/videos/1920798178199401/

Wrangler · « **Reply #11 on:** 13 August 2017, 07:53:54 »

The HMS QE video was pretty crisp footage. However, that is military ship, not some park to go pounding around on. Sadly, the military does have right charge him since it's trespassing. Who knows what kinda classified secrets of the footage could have revealed with his innocent fly over? It's like WW2 where radar literally had to be cut/pasted out of photos of ships to not reveal to spies it had radar on it or something.

Anyways, nice picture of the bow of the Russia Cruiser, Aurora. The only survivor (i know of) from the Russia's Imperial era.

kato · « **Reply #12 on:** 13 August 2017, 09:33:45 »

Quote from: Wrangler on 13 August 2017, 07:53:54

Anyways, nice picture of the bow of the Russia Cruiser, Aurora. The only survivor (i know of) from the Russia's Imperial era.

There are three other Imperial Navy ships still around:

the submarine salvage ship Kommuna aka Volkhov, commissioned 1912, in active service (!) with the Russian Navy. Part of the Black Sea Fleet.
the icebreaker Krassin aka Svyatogor, commissioned four weeks before the revolution, later captured and sunk by the British, and in service with the Russian Navy in various functions until 1989, modernized heavily in the 50s, now a museum ship.
the icebreaker Suur Töll aka Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich aka Molnyets; commissioned in 1914 with the Imperial Navy, taken over by the Soviet Navy in 1917, captured by the Finnish Navy in 1918, traded to the Estonian Navy in 1922, transferred to the Soviet Navy in 1940, decommissioned in 1987 and sold to Estonia where she is a museum ship with her original layout (unlike Krassin).

vidar · « **Reply #13 on:** 13 August 2017, 09:39:41 »

Is really neat to see how some old ship have survived, and all the little details that make up the naval architect's thinking of that age.

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #14 on:** 13 August 2017, 13:57:05 »

carrier question..

i know that carriers keep a CAP up, and have fighters ready for (relatively) rapid launch, the Ready 5 (pilots in plane and and just needing to be started up and launched) and Ready 15 (prepared but pilots not present)..

does carrier size matter for these assignments? i mean, would a Supercarrier like we have put more planes up as part of the CAP than a small carrier would?

or would it be relative to the numbers of enemies you expect to encounter on a regular basis?

(in this scifi setting the carriers run between tiny stuff with a 18-20 fighters and massive ones with 500+. even in space it seems likely that a carrier would keep a CAP up and have ready fighters. but their enemies tend to be as much if not more so fighter heavy than they are. i'm just trying to figure out how a naval aviation tradition would adapt to the setting's space warfare.)

Wrangler · « **Reply #15 on:** 13 August 2017, 13:59:42 »

Wow, the Kommuna pretty unique ship. Auxiliary Submarine tender, turn Salvage ship, then rescue ship and she a catamaran designed before it was a thing in 1990s and beyond.

Daryk · « **Reply #16 on:** 13 August 2017, 15:57:27 »

Glitterboy, I hate to say it but, "it depends". The "small carriers" that currently exist don't usually maintain a CAP at all because the kind of aircraft they carry aren't generally fighters. The whole concept of CAP is based on the threat you're facing. If you're not facing an air threat, you won't have a CAP at all. If you are, you'll put up as strong of a Defensive Counter-Air (DCA) presence as needed to protect the carrier from it. That kind of capability is sufficiently expensive to only exist if it's absolutely required. If your universe has escorts with sufficiently strong anti-aircraft batteries, you may not need CAP at all.

kato · « **Reply #17 on:** 13 August 2017, 16:43:32 »

Foch and Clemenceau as light fleet carriers - in French service - usually carried a squadron of eight Crusaders for air defense, of which two would be in the air in combat zones and another two probably at Ready 15. Other than that they had a squadron of 15 strike aircraft (SEM), a squadron of eight ASW/AEW aircraft (Alize) plus 4 recce aircraft and 4 utility helicopters in their standard air group.

At 18-20, i.e. half that air group you'd more likely just have a pair at ready to launch and no CAP in the air. Unless the sole function of the aircraft is fleet defense - then you'd see something like with the Clemenceaus above. Offhand i think Invincible and Hermes operated in a reduced way like that too on the way to the Falklands (the two carriers carried 28 RN Harriers for primary fleet defense / CAP duties and only ferried 10 RAF Harriers for ground attack).

Wrangler · « **Reply #18 on:** 13 August 2017, 17:26:27 »

Carriers seem to become the last of the capital ships i suspect. I mean the large ones.

I won't call a Destroyer, even if it's over 10,000 tons a capital ship. then again, out definition of "Capital" ship is kind of obsolete these days.

HobbesHurlbut · « **Reply #19 on:** 13 August 2017, 17:44:12 »

Capital Ship refers to a ship that takes such amount of capital to invest/build that only states/nations could bring. That's a very simplified definition of it.

Ghost0402 · « **Reply #20 on:** 13 August 2017, 18:45:28 »

Quote from: Fat Guy on 13 August 2017, 07:00:45

New thread underway, new ship underway:

CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford underway on her own power.

After seeing Nimitz carriers for as long as I have been alive, that thing looks really weird.

Sharpnel · « **Reply #21 on:** 13 August 2017, 18:46:51 »

Quote from: Ghost0402 on 13 August 2017, 18:45:28

After seeing Nimitz carriers for as long as I have been alive, that thing looks really weird.

Something about the stern just doesn't look right to to me

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #22 on:** 13 August 2017, 18:53:25 »

Battle ensigns flying from USS Massachusetts during a lull in the Casablanca fighting.

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #23 on:** 13 August 2017, 20:01:07 »

Quote from: Sharpnel on 13 August 2017, 18:46:51

Something about the stern just doesn't look right to to me

i've never seen it from the stern before.. it does look kinda odd. what does a nimitz class look like back there, for comparison?

Ghost0402 · « **Reply #24 on:** 13 August 2017, 20:02:48 »

Quote from: glitterboy2098 on 13 August 2017, 20:01:07

i've never seen it from the stern before.. it does look kinda odd. what does a nimitz class look like back there, for comparison?

Less

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #25 on:** 13 August 2017, 20:09:36 »

so they basically extended the sides a bit farther out, and had them go all the way back?

Feenix74 · « **Reply #26 on:** 13 August 2017, 20:46:01 »

Gerald R. Ford, in the immortal words of Sir Mix-A-Lot: "Baby's got back"

Charlie 6 · « **Reply #27 on:** 13 August 2017, 21:25:16 »

Quote from: Feenix74 on 13 August 2017, 20:46:01

Gerald R. Ford, in the immortal words of Sir Mix-A-Lot: "Baby's got back"

Which was the breakaway song on the USS ARLEIGH BURKE back in '92 when I did a week with the surface Navy during a midshipman cruise. I believe the song was newly released then.

Feel free to feel old.

Feenix74 · « **Reply #28 on:** 13 August 2017, 23:36:47 »

Yep, I feel what you mean.

A sort of related story, went to a restaurant with my wife to celebrate our wedding anniversary last week. The restaurant had "Est. 1998" in their logo like it was a big deal that they had been around for 19 years. I have vivid memories of both 1992 and 1998. Growing up as a kid in the 80s, I am use to business with "Est. 196x" or earlier in their logo. The idea of a business marketing that they were established in the late-90s is something I am having difficulty getting my head around.

Feenix74 · « **Reply #29 on:** 14 August 2017, 00:15:36 »

Back on topic, HMAS Warramunga (FFH 152) an Anzac-class frigate of the Royal Australian Navy, "est 1998".

She is the second HMAS Warramunga, named after HMAS Warramunga (I44) a Tribal-class destroyer of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), "est. 1942", that served in WW2 and the Korean War.

They are both named after Warramunga tribe of Indigenous Australians from Tennant Creek and Alice Springs in the Northern Territory, Australia.