BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Off Topic and Technical Support => Off Topic => Topic started by: Weirdo on 12 August 2017, 16:36:48
-
New thread, more ships!
-
Underway, ship colors for the thread!
HMS Unicorn!
(http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/photos/aircraft_carriers/unicorn_d72/01_hms_unicorn_and_kgv.jpg)
-
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).
-
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0536010.jpg)
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)
-
???
I don't see a picture...
-
???
I don't see a picture...
Odd. It shows up fine for me. Anybody know what I did wrong?
-
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.
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0536010.jpg)
Edit - Now that I have done that, it now shows up in your original post. Very strange . . .
-
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.
-
Underway, ship colors for the thread!
HMS Unicorn!
(http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/photos/aircraft_carriers/unicorn_d72/01_hms_unicorn_and_kgv.jpg)
nice picture
-
New thread underway, new ship underway:
(http://i.imgur.com/jy1Xrmd.jpg)
CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford underway on her own power.
-
Re: posts on previous thread on submarine engine spaces,
this is the manoeuvring room of 1971 Cold War French SSBN Le Redoutable
(https://s12.postimg.org/eo7tiru8d/4939e4def9d387d527246d8b1aa4213a.jpg)
these 2 are from the manoeuvring room of a US Virginia-class SSN
(https://s12.postimg.org/bin7skbm5/7a46d9ae3d6472ed78dca3fb2232ad97.jpg)
(https://s12.postimg.org/7njtpzsgd/image0078.jpg)
and this is a model ("it's only a model...") of what a reactor compartment might look like.
(https://s22.postimg.org/v71jnkkep/4966886848_1875998028_z.jpg)
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/
-
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.
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=41204)
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Kommuna_rescue_ship_2008_G2.jpg/1280px-Kommuna_rescue_ship_2008_G2.jpg)
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
New thread underway, new ship underway:
(http://i.imgur.com/jy1Xrmd.jpg)
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.
-
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
-
(http://www.defence.org.cn/aspnet/wwii/UploadFiles/200471722165811.jpg)
Battle ensigns flying from USS Massachusetts during a lull in the Casablanca fighting.
-
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?
-
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
(http://navaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/USS-George-Washington-Hosts-Japanese-Guests-1024x729.jpg)
-
so they basically extended the sides a bit farther out, and had them go all the way back?
-
Gerald R. Ford, in the immortal words of Sir Mix-A-Lot: "Baby's got back"
-
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.
-
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.
-
Back on topic, HMAS Warramunga (FFH 152) an Anzac-class frigate of the Royal Australian Navy, "est 1998".
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/US_Navy_100707-N-0641S-247_HMAS_Warramunga_%28FFH_152%29_departs_Joint_Base_Pearl_Harbor-Hickam_to_support_Rim_of_the_Pacific_%28RIMPAC%29_2010_exercises.jpg)
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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/HMAS_Warramunga_AllanGreen.jpg)
They are both named after Warramunga tribe of Indigenous Australians from Tennant Creek and Alice Springs in the Northern Territory, Australia.
-
First things first: HMS Queen Elizabeth and USS George W Bush, plus their respective escorts, recently on exercise off the UK coast. A portent of things to come, perhaps. Note that a Type 45 destroyer has joined the QE group, I can see 1 Burke and 1 Tico, not sure if there are other US escorts outside of the pic.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F120MXUSKms/WY3odduz6ZI/AAAAAAAAAXo/aCxUn6GWU7g0ro_Tye5aS9886ciqRQCHQCLcBGAs/s1600/qe0808b.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M3vX0EYQ7nM/WY3odQhTpjI/AAAAAAAAAXk/F7HRG3KYcj0xjw64Vh5wEynoaaAX7GOWwCEwYBhgL/s1600/nintchdbpict000344413458.jpg)
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?
Yes
or would it be relative to the numbers of enemies you expect to encounter on a regular basis?
Also yes
(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.)
Carriers are designed with these thoughts in mind; what is the purpose of the carrier and its aircraft, what are the activity requirements that purpose would entail and how to meet them. Of course in war, things don't always go according to plan. During the Falklands war, the RN deployed two carriers which operated initially 20, later 28 Harrier fighters between them. (20 in HMS Hermes, 8 in HMS Invincible; the former is a WW2-era ship not designed for jets while the latter is primarily a heli-carrier.)
The carriers were located 100nm east of the Falklands. A maximum of 3 CAPs of 2 Sea Harriers each made up the first line of defence for the British task force. Each fighter pair would fly out for (SWAG) 20 minutes to take up station near the Falklands, cruise for 30 minutes, be relieved by the next pair, then fly 20 minutes back. (The trips in and out were longer than distance dictated due to the need to disguise the location of the task force.) Flight deck operations were continuous; at some points all 18 CAP aircraft were in the air simultaneously. Pilots had only a handful of hours to rest between sorties; at peak tempo each fighter flew a combat sortie at least 4 times a day.
This is/was about the maximum combat tempo that can be expected, and not regularly sustainable - fighters just don't go out that many times a day normally. But that was all the British worked with. The full CAP was not always maintained, probably reduced to just 2 fighters at times when some Harriers were sent on ground-attack missions which they did during the initial period from 1st May until 18th-19th May when 12 more Harriers (some of them land-attack variants) joined the fleet. Though the British were really depending on their destroyers to stop aerial attacks, the Sea Harrier CAP was essential not just to look for Argentine fighters but also for surface ships, as their radars were powerful enough to spot ships 100nm away.
For the 500+ fighter carrier battles, you may need to think more in terms of WW2. IF I recall correctly, at the Battle of Midway the US Navy had something like 12 fighters maintained on CAP and 24 at ready 10/15 (not sure) which launched only when IJN bombers were detected inbound. (The USN had the immeasurable advantage of radar.) IIRC the IJN tried to maintain at least 24 CAP throughout the day. As a result, the initial USN bomber squadrons were slaughtered while the subsequent squadrons were untouched by IJN fighters who had by then run out of bullets; meanwhile the US CAP was more effective at intercepting the IJN fighters.
There's a balance to be maintained between recon, strike and CAP; each WW2 carrier had as a minimum something like 12 recon, 24 bomber/torpedo and 24 fighters ready for operations. The flight deck however could only "spot" or prepare for launch up to 40 aircraft at a time, and it took a lot of extra time to bring up aircraft from below to prepare for take-off, change the order of take-offs, or rearrange the deck for landing... see how crowded USS Saratoga is below:
(https://s13.postimg.org/5nlcmtvk7/USS_Saratoga_CV-3_1943-44.jpg)
-
USS Salem (currently docked in Quincy, Massachusetts. It's birth place.) The was suppose to be moved to East Boston, but there been delays. I've not visited the ship in years, but she not in so hot shape now.
(http://www.eastietimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/EB15.jpg)
-
I hope there will be a better photo from the air of the two carriers. To show a difference between the two to show the differences.
-
REMINDER
Please reduce picture sizes if it's a large image, guys. It's naval pictures thread, so I reserve the right to keel-haul you for giant images.
-
First things first: HMS Queen Elizabeth and USS George W Bush, plus their respective escorts, recently on exercise off the UK coast. A portent of things to come, perhaps. Note that a Type 45 destroyer has joined the QE group, I can see 1 Burke and 1 Tico, not sure if there are other US escorts outside of the pic.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F120MXUSKms/WY3odduz6ZI/AAAAAAAAAXo/aCxUn6GWU7g0ro_Tye5aS9886ciqRQCHQCLcBGAs/s1600/qe0808b.jpg)
Is the 45 in the picture? All I see is the Tico, the Burke, two British frigates(I think only one is a 23, I'm not 100%), and a Fridtjof Nansen.
-
Is the 45 in the picture? All I see is the Tico, the Burke, two British frigates(I think only one is a 23, I'm not 100%), and a Fridtjof Nansen.
Ah, you're right; my mistake, it's a Fridtjof Nansen, not a Type 45. This one's got a better angle of the Nansen-class:
(https://s3.postimg.org/gvj6w2103/MQ170051028_1.jpg)
From royalnavy.mod.uk: "As well as the USS George HW Bush, the group includes two Portsmouth-based Type 23 frigates, HMS Westminster and HMS Iron Duke, destroyer USS Donald Cook, missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea and the Norwegian frigate HNoMS Helge Ingstad."
-
That is one impressive battle group...
Here's a question: If the unlikely event of an attack on that group as-is were to occur, would Queen Liz be able to contribute much even without planes, through the use of her command facilities, AA sensors/defenses, other?
-
That is one impressive battle group...
Here's a question: If the unlikely event of an attack on that group as-is were to occur, would Queen Liz be able to contribute much even without planes, through the use of her command facilities, AA sensors/defenses, other?
Do they have enough CWIS, to shoot down a couple of hundred missiles from a Backfire Raid?
-
Actually Russia has only about a hundred Backfires in service anymore, and most are hanger queens.
Don't confuse the current Russian military with the old Soviet Union.
-
That is one impressive battle group...
Here's a question: If the unlikely event of an attack on that group as-is were to occur, would Queen Liz be able to contribute much even without planes, through the use of her command facilities, AA sensors/defenses, other?
Not at the moment, she apparently lacks everything and British carrier ops officers are playing the exercise from USS George HW Bush. She is even actually flagged currently as a civilian ship on govt service, and hence flies the Blue Ensign.
I was really looking forward to seeing Type 45 as well, I don't know why none are operating together with QE.
-
Not at the moment, she apparently lacks everything and British carrier ops officers are playing the exercise from USS George HW Bush. She is even actually flagged currently as a civilian ship on govt service, and hence flies the Blue Ensign.
I was really looking forward to seeing Type 45 as well, I don't know why none are operating together with QE.
I think the Type 45s are mostly in the shop too
There are only 6 and apparently they don't like warm water ???
I think the most QE could do in the event of an attack would be to draw fire away from the CVN #P
-
Wonder if the world would breathe easier if there wasn't ICBMs, ground based and water born.
TT
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/5ba9ae22b186af2ba02277f73de0cea1/tumblr_otq9u0IEOg1rkefdoo1_1280.jpg)
USS Idaho
-
Wow, that's one wet weather deck. No wonder Battleship sailors are drivin to swab the decks and keep the wood clean of salt!
(http://www.wvculture.org/history/usswv/photos/ph063.jpg)
-
SMS Baden while it was being scuttled.
(http://mv-valkyrie.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/baden.jpg)
-
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.
Well, um, happy anniversary? Also, been there myself and more so everyday.
Here's an interesting article I just on HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH's islands: http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-has-two-islands/
I'm aghast, for no reasonable reason aside from being on USN ships, at the size of the table on the Flag Bridge and corresponding waste of space. My wife, the Meeting Planner, upon seeing the same picture, "seats eight and looks like a nice breakfast service."
-
I'm aghast, for no reasonable reason aside from being on USN ships, at the size of the table on the Flag Bridge and corresponding waste of space. My wife, the Meeting Planner, upon seeing the same picture, "seats eight and looks like a nice breakfast service."
well it is the British Navy. probably a tradition somewhere in their history explaining it.
-
SMS Baden while it was being scuttled.
German Navy seems to have a lot of experience and expertise in scuttling warships . . .
Well, um, happy anniversary? Also, been there myself and more so everyday.
Thanks, 9 years and still going strong (people get shorter sentences for murder nowadays . . . ^-^ )
I'm aghast, for no reasonable reason aside from being on USN ships, at the size of the table on the Flag Bridge and corresponding waste of space. My wife, the Meeting Planner, upon seeing the same picture, "seats eight and looks like a nice breakfast service."
Being the Royal Navy Admiral's Flag Bridge it would have to be all the finest china and silver service in the best traditions of the Royal Navy. Us colonials are just simply not civilised enough to understand the need for this on the flag ship of Her Majesty's Navy :D
-
If you've got the room, no reason why not. At least there's plenty of room for maps and such.
-
Looks like a folding table to me
I expect it can be "struck" when not needed or it would become the Admiral's main map table, quite possibly a smart table underneath if it isn't a folding table with a decorative protective cover
-
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.
i think i'm going to just put it as 2 fighters from each squadron on the ship.. so the small ships with only one squadron have two planes up (and maybe 2 more in the 'ready 5' situation), while the really big ships might have 50+ out there at a time. since the big ships are usually the centerpieces for fleets, this would not only give the smaller ships extra protection, but also give the fleet more eyes in the void. (honestly, the bigger issue is going to be explaining how they land.. whoever designed these ships loved to give them launch capacity.. but obvious landing capacity and locations not so much. gonna have to go with some of the less obvious options, not gonna be fun trying to explain how they work to readers/gamers who don't always understand things like 'conservation of momentum' or that ships in space do not have to always face the direction they are moving)
-
Looks like a folding table to me
I expect it can be "struck" when not needed or it would become the Admiral's main map table, quite possibly a smart table underneath if it isn't a folding table with a decorative protective cover
Smart table? Is that possible/capable with the Windows 7 OS that the QE is reportedly equipped with?
-
They strike the table away when preparing for combat probably....
....right before they run out the 32-pounders and have a bite of salt beef and hard tack ;D
Smart table? Is that possible/capable with the Windows 7 OS that the QE is reportedly equipped with?
That Windows business was just tabloid malarkey. The ships actually use a custom proprietary OS.
-
I thought the main purpose was to split the aviation operations from the Navigational bridge to allow more room and less distractions.
-
I thought the main purpose was to split the aviation operations from the Navigational bridge to allow more room and less distractions.
Apparently, it's not just that but for other practical reasons as well.
-
I thought the main purpose was to split the aviation operations from the Navigational bridge to allow more room and less distractions.
It looks like it is more about having separated funnels for the engines and realising that having a gap between the islands rather than more above-the-flight-deck office space was better for... reasons... in the wind tunnel. You can tell I'm no good at things like engineering and physics!
They strike the table away when preparing for combat probably....
....right before they run out the 32-pounders and have a bite of salt beef and hard tack ;D
You forgot the rum. It's all about the rum.
That Windows business was just tabloid malarkey. The ships actually use a custom proprietary OS.
A friend has some responsibility for the medical care that will be arranged for these ships and I think she is currently looking at it being high tech, unhackable, EMP-hardened... paper
-
I have no idea what you guys are even talking about. Two superstructures? Flight ops? I've been poring over the image here for an hour and can't find any of this.
(http://www.naval-history.net/Photo01bbQueenElizabeth1943QM.jpg)
-
*snark* Is that canopy-covered sun deck I see above the bridge area?
-
*snark* Is that canopy-covered sun deck I see above the bridge area?
Probably
Here's a copy of the photo of the mixed CVBG
-
and here's a photo of KGV and the earlier HMS Queen Elizabeth
Admittedly, it is HM King George The Fifth rather than HMS but still...
Also check out the size of them guns!
-
I have no idea what you guys are even talking about. Two superstructures? Flight ops? I've been poring over the image here for an hour and can't find any of this.
Is this streamline enough?
(http://fly.historicwings.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/HighFlight-OperationWhite4.jpg)
HMS Argus during WW2, there a Hawk Hurricane landing to boot.
-
Continuing the streamlining, this almost happened.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/7c/6a/c0/7c6ac0302ea06b47439e8ac624c6a7ad.jpg)
(http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/usa/cva58-1.jpg)
(http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii194/carlomaha/OMACON%202009/OMACON26.jpg)
-
That fantail elevator drives me insane. One power failure or bit of damage there, and she can't land aircraft anymore no matter how well the rest of the ship is running.
Then again, with her role as a nuclear-bomber platform, chances are any damage she developed in a war were expected to be 'melting in a thermonuclear blast', so I guess some bad ideas were just shrugged at. Given the length of time though that the Midways and Forrestals were kept in service, I'd bet she would have been retired before those ships. Think of the weight of a Phantom- let alone a Tomcat. Now slam that down on that elevator over and over.
I have long believed, and continue to believe, that the Navy actually was better off without this ship being built. My granddad flew the B-36 that competed for financing with her though, and I'm sure based on my conversations with him that he'd have rather not had the Peacemaker built either. (He loved the B-24 he learned on and the B-47s he retired on, but I never heard him say a nice thing- or one repeatable in polite company- about the B-36)
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/d582152e3ee9b0e68c9d8b3c99d02e7c/tumblr_ouqgq62b9R1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
Two-gun turret of the civil code (the weight of each 550t) for battleship Conte di Cavour after increasing the caliber and elevation angle,1934.
-
Funny ships, those. It's a safe bet every other naval power looked at that and said "huh, why didn't we try that?"- whether it really worked out well or not is hard to say, though. The increase in range and angle of shot at longer ranges was definitely improved, and on at least a couple of occasions those guns as a result made life very difficult on Mediterranean operations. On the other hand, I've read that Italian guns tended to wear out far faster than contemporaries. For the Italians, that probably wasn't a big deal- their plans called for operations to be limited to the Med, so they never were far from home (thus the low fuel capacities for their ships as well), so guns that wear out fast probably were just seen as one of those 'feature, not flaw' things.
I'll note that this was referencing Italian naval guns in-general, and not just the bored-out guns on the Cavour/Doria class ships, in the interests of being fair. It's interesting though that only the Italians tried this boring-out trick- other navies, already using 14-inch guns or larger, probably didn't really have the need outside of the French dreadnoughts, the USS Arkansas, the Soviet Ganguts, and the occasional oddball like the German predreadnoughts. But to my knowledge, none of those navies ever really looked into a change to the ships' existing guns.
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/4c41a45122a53110a759b1c7e5c648b3/tumblr_ouqpuvbnDp1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The rangefinder of the battleship Wyoming in the line of duty,October 19, 1917
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/4c41a45122a53110a759b1c7e5c648b3/tumblr_ouqpuvbnDp1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The rangefinder of the battleship Wyoming in the line of duty,October 19, 1917
"Oxygen is a crutch, I say!"
-
"Oxygen is a crutch, I say!"
"range to target... 3 feet? I can't see more than about that..."
-
I'd be willing to bet that those guys unfortunately has their lives cut short by some form of respiratory disease.
-
What do you mean Guns, I see the target clearly.
-
At least the Chief Petty Officer cannot see us sneaking a cigarette while on watch up here . . .
Yep, WHS standards were a little bit different back then.
-
I have long believed, and continue to believe, that the Navy actually was better off without this ship being built. My granddad flew the B-36 that competed for financing with her though, and I'm sure based on my conversations with him that he'd have rather not had the Peacemaker built either. (He loved the B-24 he learned on and the B-47s he retired on, but I never heard him say a nice thing- or one repeatable in polite company- about the B-36)
My old man was a mechanic on the B-47's. When they retired the craft they booted him out rather than retrained him on newer aircraft. Up until a decade ago he thought they had all been scrapped until we saw two at Dayton. One in the museum and another parked on the tarmac on the base itself.
-
I'd be willing to bet that those guys unfortunately has their lives cut short by some form of respiratory disease.
The thing is, that's not coal smoke, that's gun smoke, so probably somewhat worse for their health, and definately worse smelling (cordite to me always smelled rather eggy) due to the compounds in it :s
-
I'd be willing to bet that those guys unfortunately has their lives cut short by some form of respiratory disease.
Could be worse, could be asbestos exposed engine room crew
I work in the nice place people retire to from both Plymouth and Portsmouth so we get a relatively large amount of asbestos related lung disease. Or rather we did, not many of them still around :'(
sick joke alert
they're also difficult if the family want cremation
end sick joke alert
-
Let's get something to cure with, USS Repose (AH-16). Built at the end of World War II, She was a Haven Class Hospital ship who started life as a Type C4 Merchant ships known as the Marine Beaver. Decommissioned twice during her career, she did have a useful life. She first helped attend men fighting Koren War. During her second recommission period, she and her medical staff treated 9,000 service men in Vietnam conflict.
She decommissioned in 1970. Before being scrapped, the Navy was considering to use her a morrned Medical Annex for Long Beach Naval Hospital but, it was decided it wasn't economically feasible. Having been stationed in Long Beach in early 90s, I'm kinda glad they did scrap her. She and her other WWII sister ships had problem with asbestos, i won't had to go there instead instead of the hospital. A sister ship, USS Sanctuary, lingered after her decommissioning until 2011 because of the issues of asbestos.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/USS_Repose_AH-16_Yokosuka_1952.jpeg/1280px-USS_Repose_AH-16_Yokosuka_1952.jpeg)
-
My old man was a mechanic on the B-47's. When they retired the craft they booted him out rather than retrained him on newer aircraft. Up until a decade ago he thought they had all been scrapped until we saw two at Dayton. One in the museum and another parked on the tarmac on the base itself.
There's a few around- I got to tour one at the Museum of Flight in Everett, WA a few years ago (Granddad loved the photos), and I know there are a few others here and there. The Smithsonian had one in storage at the Paul E. Garber storage site in Suitland, MD during the 1990s (a photo I saw from back then showed that distinctive nose on the disassembled aircraft), but whether they still have it and where it's now stored, I don't know. The Garber site has been undergoing clean-out in preparation for closing it down and moving their storage to the Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles Airport, but whether the Strat made that trip or went elsewhere... dunno.
(Side note, the trip between Suitland and Dulles means trucks carrying interesting items drive right past where I live on the Capital Beltway- seeing a truck stuck in Beltway traffic with a mysterious canvas-covered and wingless WWII fighter of unknown origin is pretty entertaining.)
-
Back on topic here, in today's news the US Navy announced the the USNS Lewis B. Puller (T-ESB-3) will be commissioned as USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3) due to laws of war questions. See: https://news.usni.org/2017/08/16/navy-commission-expeditionary-sea-base-lewis-b-puller-uss-warship
-
Back on topic here, in today's news the US Navy announced the the USNS Lewis B. Puller (T-ESB-3) will be commissioned as USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3) due to laws of war questions. See: https://news.usni.org/2017/08/16/navy-commission-expeditionary-sea-base-lewis-b-puller-uss-warship
That's an interesting development.
-
picture from the article..
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/5-20-15-MLP3-AT-1775.jpg)
not super sexy, but definitely different. i'm curious as to whether they'll fit it with guns now that it is an official warship.. some Phalanx and SeaRAM at least, i would think.
-
Plenty of space on that superstructure for a couple of SEAL or US Marine sniper teams to be positioned with 50-cal anti-materiel rifles ^-^
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_9pL0YYHKzY/maxresdefault.jpg)
Seriously, a couple of Typhoon Weapons Stations are easily installed (from what I understand there are no penetrations of the deck required to secure them in place.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Typhoon25mm001.jpg)
-
There's lots of footage on the BBC and similar of HMS Queen Elizabeth docking in Portsmouth from yesterday
The one shot I haven't seen is her compared to the historic ships in Portsmouth - HMS Victory (still in commission) and the former HMS Warrior (no longer in commission but afloat)
-
Here you go, HMS Queen Elizabeth with HMS Warrior in the background
(https://www.sundaypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2017/08/DEFENCE-Carrier-082207.jpg.jpg)
-
And at long last, a Type 45 (HMS Diamond)!!
-
Back on topic here, in today's news the US Navy announced the the USNS Lewis B. Puller (T-ESB-3) will be commissioned as USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3) due to laws of war questions. See: https://news.usni.org/2017/08/16/navy-commission-expeditionary-sea-base-lewis-b-puller-uss-warship (https://news.usni.org/2017/08/16/navy-commission-expeditionary-sea-base-lewis-b-puller-uss-warship)
I'm trying to work out but I think the legal problems stem from internal US legislation rather than international convention for the need to change the status of the ship; these are the advantages of having a largely unwritten constitution apart from needing parliament to vote to keep the Army
anyway, here are some more images of HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Victory and because there are "exploded" diagrams of both warships, another exploded warship
-
Back on topic here, in today's news the US Navy announced the the USNS Lewis B. Puller (T-ESB-3) will be commissioned as USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3) due to laws of war questions. See: https://news.usni.org/2017/08/16/navy-commission-expeditionary-sea-base-lewis-b-puller-uss-warship
Not a fan of this. I know it's about cost savings, and saving for alot of potential paper work. There still potentially putting civilians in harm's way on a ship that was never designed to be remotely close to a hot zone. I served on a commissioned Auxiliary ship, which was not as vulnerable as a converted freighter is.
Too me there two problems with it.
- Civilian Risk: Biggest sore point is the potentially putting civilian's in harms way. I know that's not worry initially, but a potential enemy or terrorist may not have no restraint targeting support units since there so vulnerable and easily rendered. Puller could end up going down quicker than sack of potatoes since it's likely does not have a very good damage control.
- Enlisted & Commission Ratings loss: The point of Merchant Marines these days was to save costs so enlisted and commission personal could be focus on warships that are going into harms way. The problem with that if this method of saving money by off-shoring costs of enlisted trained Engineering types to older (likely former military) persons. Its possible that that will cause bigger shortage of trained people in service. A contractor can quit (yes, there contract but there still more wiggle room there) while enlisted can't. I know for a fact there can potentially be alot enlisted people being unhappy, seeing these civies getting more money for the same job their doing and having more freedom to do what they want as well.
-
I'll throw one on the fire. Poor quality, sadly, but striking nonetheless.
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/0fda69ba21ab59d0ef2529530b0e18ea/tumblr_ouu7a7FRCz1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
Unknown Destroyer
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/997e0c74e8e7d4e70750a8b8fb8a8e7e/tumblr_ouu794t7FT1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
MN Battleship Danton.
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/e8d8284195a1d52a4448614e3af0d1da/tumblr_ouu76ySDUX1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
HMS Falmouth
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/4ece61df47384392d2cf313a4c663997/tumblr_ouu7608xLX1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
HMS Courageous
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/15efaf43bc66d70b183457d5c089124a/tumblr_ouu44f92Qq1qgggino1_1280.jpg)
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/0fda69ba21ab59d0ef2529530b0e18ea/tumblr_ouu7a7FRCz1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
Unknown Destroyer
unkown? Aren't those life rings a clue to her identification?
-
Quick search came up with the Italian Lampo-class destroyers of WWI:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lampo-class_destroyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lampo-class_destroyer)
There's a ship by the same name that fought (and was lost) in WWII, but the photo looks pretty clearly to be older vintage than that. I feel safe calling it the WWI vessel.
-
anyway, here are some more images of HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Victory and because there are "exploded" diagrams of both warships, another exploded warship
I'm a little surprised at that flagship picture...I mean not at least one or two Ark Royal's? I would have thought that at least the one that served as the English flagship against the Spanish Armada would warrant...personally, I would have used her before the Mary Rose...
???
Ruger
-
I love how in that image depicting the Mary Rose they just say "sank in battle". "Rolled over in a strong gust of wind" doesn't have the same patriotic punch. :P
-
I love how in that image depicting the Mary Rose they just say "sank in battle". "Rolled over in a strong gust of wind" doesn't have the same patriotic punch. :P
Well its not wrong :p She was taking part in a battle at the time, or at least sailing to engage the enemy (and seeing as it was the 1500's it was of course, The French).
-
This is the USS Hewell (AG-145) & also (AKL-14). Originally built in 1944 as FS-139, she was intended to work for the US Army as a cargo ship. She brough into service as a light freighter for commissioned US navy work, where she was a light freighter conveying cargo to small US bases in the Central Pacific region. Commissioned in 1948 in US Navy as the Hewell, she then operated in Pacific until 1955. She essentially did runs to Hawaii initially for Guam (other central Pacific islands) and later years for Korean War, she was operating out of Japan. Until the war's end. She was only armed with 50 cal machine guns.
Now she not a remarkable ship, except for one thing. This ship was also, the ship used "Mister Roberts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Roberts_(1955_film))", the old 1950s Comedy film. The ship solely was utilized for the filming between Hawaii and Midway Island.
She ended her days in Washington state where she was decommissioned and scrapped.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/USS_Hewell_AG-145_AKL-14.jpg)
-
HMAS Arrow (P88) an Attack-class patrol boat, top speed 24 knots, armed with a 40mm Bofors and two 50-cal M2 Browning machine guns:
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/1974%20before%20deploying%20to%20Darwin_0.JPG)
She was based in Darwin, when on Christmas Day 1974, Darwin was hit by Cyclone Tracey. This is HMAS Arrow, following Cyclone Tracey:
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/Frances%20Bay%20bow.JPG)
Here (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-19/cyclone-tracy-survivor-tells-his-story-for-the-first-time/8822036)is the story about her on that day.
-
One hopes that the crew was enclosed in a nice and safe barracks building. That boat can be sent out for recycling and turned into beer cans.
-
Unfortunately, HMAS Arrow's crew were ordered to take her out to a Navy-provided cyclone buoy, roughly a kilometre out to sea from Stokes Hill Wharf in Darwin. Arrow's anchor winch and cable slips were ripped clean from the deck of the ship, leaving the vessel to the mercy of the waves and winds more than 200 kilometres per hour.
"We could see red and green light as waves washed right over the ship — the rain actually took the paint off the metalwork."
Unfortunately, two of the crew died as they attempted to bring the ship back into Darwin harbour and ground it.
-
One pic, two threads:
(https://s21.postimg.org/4ij0ybos7/Typhoons-_Kuznetsov-top.jpg)
-
USS Indianapolis has been found in roughly 18,000 feet of water in the Phillipine Sea.
https://www.paulallen.com/wreckage-from-uss-indianapolis-located-in-philippine-sea/#wreckage-from-uss-indianapolis-located-in-philippine-sea (https://www.paulallen.com/wreckage-from-uss-indianapolis-located-in-philippine-sea/#wreckage-from-uss-indianapolis-located-in-philippine-sea)
-
Finally! I'm otherwise at a loss for words...
-
Based on the photos available so far, she's in remarkably good shape. The amount of marine growth seems to be pretty minimal compared to the Musashi a couple of years ago- being out in the middle of nowhere away from islands seems to be helpful in that regard (as was the case with Yorktown).
I'll be very interested to see more of this.
-
Wasn't Indianapolis in deeper water? Won't that keep her better preserved?
-
Amazing. I didn't know Indianapolis was a flagship or that she was delivering nuke components.
-
Aerial view of the Repair Tender, USS Promedeus servicing the USS South Dakota and some destroyers in 1942. The heck of undetaking. There isn't a lot repair tenders left in the US Navy now, i guess shipyard work is better than trying do repairs at sea.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bb1629dca5f22306610bee3ad4ab091f-c)
-
Amazing. I didn't know Indianapolis was a flagship or that she was delivering nuke components.
She's also the ship described in the movie Jaws, when Quint is describing the Navy cruiser that was torpedoed and lost a lot of crew to groups of sharks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4190178/Jaws-death-story-USS-Indianapolis.html
Approximately nine hundred sailors survived the torpedo attack and rapid sinking of the cruiser. Three hundred were rescued. The rest? Food.
-
She's also the ship described in the movie Jaws, when Quint is describing the Navy cruiser that was torpedoed and lost a lot of crew to groups of sharks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4190178/Jaws-death-story-USS-Indianapolis.html
Approximately nine hundred sailors survived the torpedo attack and rapid sinking of the cruiser. Three hundred were rescued. The rest? Food.
It was the subject of the eponymous Nick Cage movie last year. It got extremely poor reviews.
-
It was the subject of the eponymous Nick Cage movie last year. It got extremely poor reviews.
Which was sad, really. I know it got a lot of negative, reviews, but I can't help but think that those poor reviewers deserved better than to have to watch that thing in the first place. (It was truly awful- like, bad to the point of being offensive. I gave up after about 45 minutes.)
-
You're making me glad I never heard of it...
-
One of the survivors still walks around Indy today. Last time I personally seen him was about three weeks ago at the local downtown grocery store. Must be close to well into his nineties...
Gives out those toothpick American flags and had a few years ago, a table with his autobiography for sale. Plus that painting that shows the sinking.
I haven't seen him in a while, hope he's ok...
TT
(Supposedly, Indy is to get the sail of the sub for the canal located downtown..)
-
Just been reported here in Aus, that the guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) has collided with a merchant ship east of Singapore.
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/8795754-3x2-940x627.jpg)
I am beginning to think that the USN needs to consider improving their seamanship training for Arleigh Burke crews . . .
-
Just been reported here in Aus, that the guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) has collided with a merchant ship east of Singapore.
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/8795754-3x2-940x627.jpg)
I am beginning to think that the USN needs to consider improving their seamanship training for Arleigh Burke crews . . .
[metalhealth] [metalhealth] [metalhealth]
Ruger
-
Thoughts and prayers for the 10 missing sailors and their families.
-
This is the ship the McCain ran into. The Alnic MC
(http://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/showphoto.aspx?photoid=26270&size=)
Straights they were operating in is pretty dense in traffic. While i was in the Navy in the early 1990s, the Auxiliary ship i was on responded to a collision of a freighter and tanker. It sheered bow off the tanker, while freighter was listing to side. There was at least 1 fatality, which wasn't pleasant business for my ship's crew on the flight deck. It was terrible business. That must been a minor glance they took, the McCain could have been easily sunk by that thing.
I thoughts are with the lost sailors/families and the the crews both ships.
-
While I am very very sorry for the crew and families of both this ship and the others recently involved in accidents, I do also have an evil black sense of humour...
There is a bit of me that can't help wondering if the training for lookouts aboard these DDGs needs to include more emphasis on their surface action role and not to just spend the whole time looking at the sky?
I do find it odd that these collisions keep happening in these waters as the English Channel is also very busy but people don't bump into each other badly enough to hit the news from one year to the next. Are people not using their radar, look outs etc? This bit a question to my more learned colleagues
-
The collision also sparked a minor turf war as it happened in waters disputed by Malaysia and Singapore. That aside, all hands are on deck for the SAR though.
One would think that after USS Cole all the way back when, people would be watching their surface radars more carefully. Between this and Japan the USN's reputation has taken a couple of dents in these parts I'm afraid.
In more pleasant news... Queen Liz's arrived in Portsmouth.
(https://s30.postimg.org/eyo2amjsh/fx170232089ppt.jpg)
-
Why do navies have a tradition of having the men stand along the railings of the ship when entering port?
-
Why do navies have a tradition of having the men stand along the railings of the ship when entering port?
Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manning_the_rail
-
Ah, so that's what they call it. I knew it had a term, but I couldn't remember what it was. Thanks. I'm surprised that it's only a US tradition since it originated in the age of sail.
-
Ah, so that's what they call it. I knew it had a term, but I couldn't remember what it was. Thanks. I'm surprised that it's only a US tradition since it originated in the age of sail.
The Royal Navy does it too, it used to be manning the yards when there were sail carrying masts but the wikipedia page looks to have been written from a purely USN point of view
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yard_(sailing)#Manning_the_yards
-
I'm surprised that it's only a US tradition since it originated in the age of sail.
In the German Navy - and the French Navy - the equivalent formation is pretty much only commanded if it's the ship's last cruise, usually accompanied with salutes. The default in both seems to be to have one or two dozen men in formation on the aviation deck (not at the rails). Other than that both only use it as an exceptional greeting - e.g. to distinguished warships, or for German ships also when passing the Navy Memorial at Laboe.
However, in both countries manning the rails seems to be generally used on entering port with cadets though. For Germany that's with an actual sail ship of course, but for France the only pictures of e.g. one of the Mistrals manning the rails are from the cadet cruises.
The Royal Navy does it too
Australian and Canadian ships too, in the same excessive way.
-
The damage.
(http://www.livemint.com/rf/Image-621x414/LiveMint/Period2/2017/08/22/Photos/Processed/collisonn-kxQ--621x414@LiveMint.jpg)
(https://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2017/08/21/BostonGlobe.com/National/Images/AFP_RQ0B6.jpg)
-
The blog, CDR Salamander has a link to the Preliminary Inquiry that Carrier Strike Wing Five conducted on FITZ.
-
The blog, CDR Salamander has a link to the Preliminary Inquiry that Carrier Strike Wing Five conducted on FITZ.
Excellent read, looks like the sailors all did an excellent job in a sudden and frankly terrifying situation.
Went on to read a few articles in the rest of the blog which caught my eye; wow, the comments threads are cancerous ::)
-
It strikes me as a little early for the PI for the FITZGERALD to be published...
-
Excellent read, looks like the sailors all did an excellent job in a sudden and frankly terrifying situation.
Went on to read a few articles in the rest of the blog which caught my eye; wow, the comments threads are cancerous ::)
They can be on certain subjects. I'm a regular on there...
(Rule of cautious judgement applies here)
The general feeling seems to be along the lines of what VADM Beatty said at Jutland.
-
They can be on certain subjects. I'm a regular on there...
(Rule of cautious judgement applies here)
The general feeling seems to be along the lines of what VADM Beatty said at Jutland.
To paraphrase:
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody destroyers lately!"
;)
Ruger
-
@Kidd
wow, i'm surprised the ship wasn't cut in half with that sort damage. How heck did they get the ship pulled out?
-
got curious.. when did the US navy retire its last (non-battleship, non-carrier) warships that had fought in ww2?
it is easy to find info on carriers and of course the Iowa's soldiered on for a long time. i'm curious how long they kept using the Cruisers, destroyers and frigates.
-
got curious.. when did the US navy retire its last (non-battleship, non-carrier) warships that had fought in ww2?
it is easy to find info on carriers and of course the Iowa's soldiered on for a long time. i'm curious how long they kept using the Cruisers, destroyers and frigates.
Other than Old Ironsides? I would guess it would be some of the transports or oilers. The other thing is that there are hulls well over 100 years old being used as things like oil jetties and pontoons in various harbours and ports - this is what happened to HMS Warrior for example.
To paraphrase:
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody destroyers lately!"
;)
Ruger
And as with the RN's battle cruisers, I think they have been showing they are very well built in terms of how well they have survived the impacts (I have visions of a tanker captain saying "Ramming speed Mr Denny, there's a DDG ahead and I want to paint a little ship on the side of our funnel") but I am concerned about the watchkeeping or other "software"/"wetware" actions that have led to the accidents.
-
I narrowed this down to ships that were commissioned before the ned of the War in the Pacific
Heavy Cruiser: USS Columbus decommissioned on Jan 31, 1975 after conversion to a guided missile cruiser in the 1960s
Light Cruiser: USS Oklahoma City was decommissioned on Dec 15, 1979 after conversion to a guided missile cruiser in the 1960s
Destroyer: Both Allen M. Sumner and Gearing class destroyers had multiple vessels serve the USN well into the 1970s due to FRAM upgrades.
-
Hopefully this is not region blocked/locked:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-21/uss-john-mccain-damaged-after-collision/8828096 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-21/uss-john-mccain-damaged-after-collision/8828096)
-
I narrowed this down to ships that were commissioned before the ned of the War in the Pacific
Heavy Cruiser: USS Columbus decommissioned on Jan 31, 1975 after conversion to a guided missile cruiser in the 1960s
Light Cruiser: USS Oklahoma City was decommissioned on Dec 15, 1979 after conversion to a guided missile cruiser in the 1960s
Destroyer: Both Allen M. Sumner and Gearing class destroyers had multiple vessels serve the USN well into the 1970s due to FRAM upgrades.
USS Chicago (CG-11, ex CA-136) was converted in the same fashion as Columbus (CG-12, ex CA-74), and was decommissioned following survey in 1980. Their unmodified sister St. Paul (CA-73) was decommissioned in 1971, but retained until 1980. Both Chicago and St. Paul had credible war service
The last FRAM modified destroyer, the USS William C. Lawe (DD-763) was not commissioned until 1946 due to reduction gear issues. She was decommissioned in 1983.
-
Other than Old Ironsides? I would guess it would be some of the transports or oilers. The other thing is that there are hulls well over 100 years old being used as things like oil jetties and pontoons in various harbours and ports - this is what happened to HMS Warrior for example.
Couple years ago there were still dozens of old C3/C4 transports at Suisun and James River in the reserve fleets. The last of these were as far as i know scrapped over the last five years - all that remains is ships built in the 60s for Vietnam.
USS Chicago (CG-11, ex CA-136) was converted in the same fashion as Columbus (CG-12, ex CA-74), and was decommissioned following survey in 1980.
USS Chicago remained in reserve until 1991 afterwards.
The last WW2 ship decommissioned from active service (other than carriers and battleships) was probably - and definitely the last pre-war ship decommissioned - was USS Prairie (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/28/us/navy-decommissions-its-oldest-active-ship.html?mcubz=0) (AD-15), a destroyer tender built in 1939 and decommissioned in 1993.
-
I honestly wonder if anything in mothballs can be reactivated...
(http://www.epicadamwildlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/mothball.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4008/4477314996_c5b1e34d75_b.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/08/08/275D31D500000578-0-image-a-3_1428476813707.jpg)
-
That's the entire point of mothballs- if it couldn't be reactivated, why would you keep it around at all?
Now, it's not a matter of just running a flag up the mast and saying "Let's go!". Any ship in mothballs needs a lot of work, even if it was only recently retired. Engines need to be re-lubricated, seals need to be removed, watertight checks done, every system on board tested, upgrades to electronics and such made... it's not a fast process. You're looking at months of work, bare minimum, to get just about anything put back in service- probably more, the larger and more complex the vessel.
But, as we saw with the Iowas, it CAN be done. Note that in that case, the length of the refit was a few years each, but that also involved far more than simply recommissioning the ship as above- they got fairly extensive upgrades that involved the removal of older weapons, installation of newer ones, etc.- something like that Iwo Jima-class ship at the back in the first photo wouldn't need anything that extensive, one would think.
-
Another thing...3 of the 4 carriers in that picture have either been scrapped or are being scrapped, so ensure not coming back.
-
Well, at least they get underway in our forums. ;)
The danger ranger her self, USS Ranger CV-61.
(http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/histories/cv61-ranger/cv61-710519.jpg)
-
Some of those ships look like they need the scrapers.
-
Let's do this!
"So, eleven hundred men went into the water,
three hundred sixteen men come out,
and the sharks took the rest,
June the 29th, 1945.
[he pauses, smiles, and raises his glass]
Anyway... we delivered the bomb."
- Captain Quint
(http://i.imgur.com/JlypH2l.png)
-
Some of those ships look like they need the scrapers.
More needs a transfer of metal. Their more rust than steel now. Some of them. These are old.
I'm not certain which ship this came from, but mothballs varies i guess. I know the Wisconsin while in semi-mothballs in Norfolk did fantastic job maintaining preservation while displaying the ship in downtown Norfolk.
Here some more mothballs ships.
(http://navy.memorieshop.com/World-Ports/BayArea/Suisun-Bay/2008/RowG-3.jpg)
The Tennessee isn't in so hot shape in this photo. I know she long gone. :-[
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/65/d3/4c/65d34c0bc39fb0165fdb14c7ac8bb8be.jpg)
-
Some will end up like this once stripped of hazardous materials. While some would say this is a bad way to go but I don't you sink something as a target you add to the training of future sailors and potentially create a habitat for future marine life
-
There's sometimes different levels of mothballs, to be fair. In the case of the Tennessee above, she and her sisters of the Big Five semi-class were kept in reserve through much of the 1950s, but realistically there was never any intention to ever reactivate them again- the battleship's day was done, and certainly if that was the case there was no interest in reactivating battle-scarred, three-decade-old dinosaurs in particular. Had those ships been slated to go back on active duty, it would have meant a calamity had befallen the U.S. far beyond anything imaginable at the time.
The result? Ships that are maintained, but not exactly kept in perfect shape. After all, these aren't even manned by skeleton crews- they're inspected on a rotation basis, with no one really aboard full-time, so rust and undergrowth will happen far faster- partly due to lack of a crew to maintain, partly because they aren't moving about anymore.
Note however that in comparison, the Iowas at this same point were still considered possible to reactivate (though with no concrete plans to do so- even the New Jersey's Vietnam reactivation was a sudden and ad-hoc process), and were maintained far better as a result- after all, the better condition the ship is in, the faster it can be reactivated, so some ships like these got better treatment as a result. (One can expect that was a major factor in the reactivation of the class in the 1980s- after all, if they were in wretched shape like the Tennessee up there was, why bother at all?)
One other minor factor to consider, looking at the 'modern' reserve ships earlier in the thread- color camera shots show rust and wear far better than a black and white image does, so those famous shots of reserve fleets postwar in San Diego, Suisun Bay, Philadelphia, etc. look a lot more trim and clean than those ships above- because we can't see brown rust and such as easily. I know that sounds stupid, but it really does end up being the case- looking at images of the ruins of Japanese ships postwar at Kure, a B&W shot of the carrier Amagi on its side shows a ship laying on its side bombed out- but a color shot shows the extent that a year of that condition has done in terms of rust and decay far better.
-
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4411/36615606156_874b9aec14_b.jpg)
-
Some will end up like this once stripped of hazardous materials. While some would say this is a bad way to go but I don't you sink something as a target you add to the training of future sailors and potentially create a habitat for future marine life
Being used in a SINKEX is not much worse than being broken up for scrap, and as you say, at least it contributes to the training of the next generation.
However, it's a pity the USS America (CV-65? 66? can't quite recall) went that way, if only because of the name.
-
cool shot
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/1f9c9c3d636f3132dae9f3875ede3104/tumblr_oeqwrtekyJ1r39szco1_1280.jpg)
Onlookers line up to watch the annual sacrifice of the baby boats to the sea pyramid to avoid her wrath. This sacrifice is necessary to continue the safety of the United States of America, for if we do not sacrifice our baby boats to the sea pyramid every year, her wrath will see the destruction of our great country.
There will be nothing we can do to stop the sea pyramid if we do not continue these sacrifices.
-
ALL HAIL THE SEA PYRAMID.
-
They should paint a big eye on each side of it... ^-^
-
They should paint a big eye on each side of it... ^-^
do you want tinfoil conspiracists? cause that's how you get tinfoil conspiracists...
-
They should paint a big eye on each side of it... ^-^
Paint the Eye of Horus on it!
-
do you want tinfoil conspiracists? cause that's how you get tinfoil conspiracists...
OK, then. A big LED screen on each side showing a giant eye, linked to the radar systems set to detect any returns that look like tinfoil and have the eyes track them... }:)
-
cool shot
What heck was that?
-
An LCAC replacement proposal. It lost out to the Ship-to-Shore Connector (basically an improved LCAC):
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/NAVY_SSC_Textron_Concept_Unloading_M1_lg.jpg)
-
So, question about modern non-carriers: when the officer in charge makes the decision to shoot something, how many people actually need to do things so that the big exploding thing hits the target?
-
So, question about modern non-carriers: when the officer in charge makes the decision to shoot something, how many people actually need to do things so that the big exploding thing hits the target?
Depends on what it is, you'd have the radar crew working to lock a target up they pass the data to the fire control folks and then it comes down to the WSO (Weapons System Officer) and he/she is the one who presses the button. But once the orders given its an incredibly fast process as the target would already be tracked on radar/sonar and both groups would be there waiting for any order.
-
An LCAC replacement proposal. It lost out to the Ship-to-Shore Connector (basically an improved LCAC):
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/NAVY_SSC_Textron_Concept_Unloading_M1_lg.jpg)
The thing looks like crazy bulldozer/paddle ferry. I'd rather seen US picked up the French L-Cats instead. Grant you they can't go on land, but they seem to be pretty well designed and arguably bit more solid.
(http://www.defense.gouv.fr/var/dicod/storage/images/base-de-medias/images/dga/1-materiels-divers/le-landing-catamaran/319022-1-fre-FR/le-landing-catamaran.jpg)
-
The thing looks like crazy bulldozer/paddle ferry. I'd rather seen US picked up the French L-Cats instead. Grant you they can't go on land, but they seem to be pretty well designed and arguably bit more solid.
(http://www.defense.gouv.fr/var/dicod/storage/images/base-de-medias/images/dga/1-materiels-divers/le-landing-catamaran/319022-1-fre-FR/le-landing-catamaran.jpg)
I think the benefits of the air cushion in landing outweighs that of the catamaran on-water
I guess the ideal would be a hull that would allow an air cushion craft to float like a boat at low speeds (to save fuel) and then inflate the air cushion and zip in/out in gas-guzzler mode
-
So, question about modern non-carriers: when the officer in charge makes the decision to shoot something, how many people actually need to do things so that the big exploding thing hits the target?
Depends on the weapon system. In theory, it's all rigged so once the tracking is complete, the target is localized, and the weapon loaded, it's push the button/pull the trigger and fire, with nobody else needed.
In practice, there are a large number of sailors assigned to troubleshoot systems at battlestations. For torpedoes, we'd have 11 men in the room to move weapons and man the console, Sonar fully manned, and all but one officer (EOOW) working on the solution with the Fire Control Technicians.
-
I think the benefits of the air cushion in landing outweighs that of the catamaran on-water
I guess the ideal would be a hull that would allow an air cushion craft to float like a boat at low speeds (to save fuel) and then inflate the air cushion and zip in/out in gas-guzzler mode
If I recall, a "deep" catamaran hull like that is more stable when the sea is rough.
-
Something about summon bigger fish:
(https://cdn3.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/980x551/public/images/methode/2017/06/29/8d2efa62-5bca-11e7-98d7-232f56a99798_1280x720_090750.JPG?itok=vTvbVa1M)
It looks like a 125% scaled Type 52D
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Bundesarchiv_DVM_10_Bild-23-61-15%2C_Panzerkreuzer_%22SMS_Goeben%22.jpg)
There aren't a lot of ships from any era that can claim to have had a career as wild and varied as that of the German-built battlecruiser Goeben. Her sister Moltke spent her career in Hipper's battlecruiser squadron, seeing action against their opposite numbers in the Grand Fleet on a couple of occasions. Goeben, however, was detached along with a light cruiser (Breslau) to the Mediterranean, ostensibly to raid. In fact, she ended up being a major catalyst to the Ottoman Empire joining World War One.
When the British realized war was on the horizon, they cancelled orders for several foreign-built ships and instead took the ships on as their own. This included a pair of battleships being built for the Ottomans- a decision that went over poorly- so when the Germans seized the opportunity by sending a pair of modern warships over and saying 'here, join up with us and these are yours!*', the Ottomans were quite happy. The ship, renamed Yawuz Sultan e Selim (later shortened to Yawuz) started a war with Russia by bombarding Sevastopl (with her German crew still aboard, in Turkish uniforms), and continued to have many adventures throughout the remainder of the war. The link to her Wikipedia page below is worth your time to read- I can't do this justice here.
The ship was retained after the end of the war, and continued to serve for many years after- it wasn't until the 1970s that she finally was scrapped. It's an amazing career, one of the 20th century's most influential and yet little-appreciated ships.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Goeben)
-
Ex Pacific Griffin recently completed very near my neck of woods. Nice shot of USS Coronado firing Harpoon, I'm sorry but missile launches never get old for me.
(https://s26.postimg.org/4egvi00wp/1000x667_q95.jpg)
(https://s26.postimg.org/ldptx9c49/exercise-pacific-griffin.jpg)
(https://s26.postimg.org/91mxjro9l/XPG_Coronado_Harpoon.jpg)
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-41159979
Not a manned vessel obviously, but still impressive. :)
-
Nice seeing the LCS get some weapon upgrades Harpoons and other
-
Nice seeing the LCS get some weapon upgrades Harpoons and other
If its built, the FFG variant is suppose to have those and a short range missile like Hellfires too.
-
If its built, the FFG variant is suppose to have those and a short range missile like Hellfires too.
I think the USS Detroit had a test fire of the Hellfire missile. Im form Detroit and I was at the Commissioning.
-
If its built, the FFG variant is suppose to have those and a short range missile like Hellfires too.
They were talking about buying Brimstones for them at one point
-
They were talking about buying Brimstones for them at one point
There going to put all-season tires on the things? :o
J/K
(http://i1.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Unique-Reina-Mercedes.jpg?resize=554%2C350)
The Spanish training ship, Reina Mercedes.
-
(http://i1.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Unique-Reina-Mercedes.jpg?resize=554%2C350)
The Spanish training ship, Reina Mercedes.
The fastest ship in the navy!
Also, the only CO afloat position where the family could live aboard.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/I3uT8.jpg)
Proof of concept report...
http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/navy-demonstrates-swarm-armed-robot-boats
-
Everytime i see one those things, I think somebody is workin hack that thing or it's controller and deciding it should go Grand Theft Auto ith it. It's neat idea, good saving money on personnel, but i don't think its will be good when things get ugly once people figure it out.
-
Was it ever made public how the Iranians got their hands on that air drone? IIRC they claimed to have hacked it...
I think it will be a bit safer when used to escort a manned ship, thought. Easier to do something about it when you're actually within detection range of the drones!
-
First down payment on a Hegemonising Swarm!
(Readers of Iain M Banks will recognise the intent)
W.
-
DARPAs Sea Hunter autonomous ship being tested (the final product will lack the crew section ontop and instead carry a mission module)
-
Why does it look like it is made out of inflatable rubber?
-
"It's only a model..." ;D
-
Deckhouse looks temporary way its made.
-
(https://i.redd.it/7i0hr32sh74z.png)
-
Don't mind me. Much like the USCGC Modoc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Modoc_(WPG-46)) during the battle against the Bismarck, I'm just passing through...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/USCGC_Modoc_%28WPG-46%29.jpg)
-
*snips*
The only issue I have with that is the fact that the armor scheme of an old battleship doesn't tend to protect the hull below waterline very well, especially for something like artillery cannons.
-
The only issue I have with that is the fact that the armor scheme of an old battleship doesn't tend to protect the hull below waterline very well, especially for something like artillery cannons.
That's the ONLY issue? ;D
-
These are colorized (not true color photos) pictures
French Pre-Dreadnought Battleship - Charles Martel in 1898
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6wue989kU1qhsqm1o1_1280.jpg)
French Pre-Dreadnought Battleship - Hoche in 1890
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6wu0ePSQn1qhsqm1o1_1280.jpg)
-
Ah, turn of the century France. When men were men, and shipwrights were on absinthe! :)
-
Ah, turn of the century France. When men were men, and shipwrights were on absinthe! :)
The smaller hatches on the hull above the waterline...are those gun ports?
-
the ones with the panel things on either side on the Hoche are gunports i believe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ironclad_Hoche
on the Charles Martel? i don't think so
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Charles_Martel
-
the ones with the panel things on either side on the Hoche are gunports i believe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ironclad_Hoche
on the Charles Martel? i don't think so
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Charles_Martel
Yep this is correct, on the Hoche they are the ports for her secondary battery of 5.5-inch guns whilst on the Martel they are just portholes.
-
It's the main new thing of the Charles Martel and other battleships finished in 1897 like her - they removed the 5.5" guns from the barbettes in her design and placed them all in turrets.
Brennus, built a year earlier, was the intermediate version and to some extent already a move towards a two-caliber main and secondary battery only; she had 13.3" main guns in one twin and one single turret, and placed her 6.4" secondary battery into the main barbette deck (six guns) and turrets (four guns).
In designs commissioning after the turn of the century they backtracked slightly, and the barbette deck guns were converted to casemate turrets pretty much.
-
Aye and the French hydralic turrets were a bit special. Each mount was lifted off its barbette and rotated before being lowered, their main guns also had all-round loading which the RN was a bit slower to introduce, their turrets having to slew fore and aft to reload once the ready to use ammo in the turrets was all shot out.
-
That's the ONLY issue? ;D
Sure. We do have machines as big as a warship on land. They just have to not expect it to go fast. Maybe 1 mph, at best. Anything is possible with that technology level if you're willing to throw manpower, resource, and time at it.
-
Eh, the largest mobile land machines are only the size of heavy cruisers - and the largest with their own engines are the size of WW2 destroyer escorts...
-
Eh, the largest mobile land machines are only the size of heavy cruisers - and the largest with their own engines are the size of WW2 destroyer escorts...
It's 1917 and the article is talking about converting *OLD* battleships, which we can take to mean Pre-Dreadnought battleships. Lord Nelson Class, the last RN PreDN battleship, weighed no more than 16,350 metric tons. Cleveland Class light cruiser weighed no more than 14,358 metric tons.
-
TIME MARCHES ON!....so now Rolls Royce is getting into the autonomous ship building market (https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/13/16300866/rolls-royce-autonomous-ship-navy). Their building a 197-foot-long (60m) multifunctional/cargo ship.
Propose Rolls-Royce's "Naval" Ship.
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=41644;image)
Sea Hunter, the autonomous submarine hunting ship built by the US Navy is a similar unmanned ship. RR's new ship has not been launched yet, but I do wonder what naval warfare will be like without people. I am kind of a luddite in this regards, since it's taking need for people reducing us to button pressers in a office cubical somewhere. I think it's more important have people manning these ships. I know cost saving, removing human error is a business / organization key words in their agendas. However, I do believe these vehicles could be ultimately hacked eventually. Cyber warfare safeguarding a country or business assets be burdensome. Why do this when you have nearly unhackable crew onboard. I served and I knew what I was getting into risking life and limb going into harms way.
Personally, less people going to sea, less people will care about naval/nautical related stuff as well.
-
I echo your concern Wrangler. What happens when there is no longer any human cost to our decision to go to war? ie we no longer have to send our own sons and daughters into harms way to persecute a war. It will be so much easier to make the decision to go to war when the cost for your own side is negligible. I worry for our future :'(
-
I wouldn't call the crew of a ship unhackable. Otherwise things like this list wouldn't exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_spies
Granted a crew is less likely to be hacked than a drone. Another aspect to consider is combat damage and hardware breakdowns. With a crew on board you can use damage control teams to repair the damage, fix the broken stuff. Without a crew the options are much more limited. Without a crew you have to design these things to either be unbreakable or cheap enough you can afford to lose them when something goes wrong.
-
I'm pretty sure that with highly complex cryptography /encryption you can make things sufficiently complex that they can't be hacked in "real time" although nothing is actually immune to enough time and brute force computing
My bigger worry would be jamming
They might do best using long fibre optic cables from a Mother Ship
-
the drone ships are mostly being designed around the littorial environment, where larger more conventional ships tend to be rather vulnerable and limited. the smaller ones got their first interest after the USS Cole got attacked by a suicide speedboat.. being able to carry a few remote operated, armed, drone speedboats of your own to intercept such attacks was seen an advantage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/USS_Cole_%28DDG-67%29_Departs.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/INTEL-COGNITIVE-Cole.jpg)
-
Not to be morbid, but i have to say: The Burkes have shown themselves to be quite resilient to having large holes ripped in their sides. Ok, maybe not resilient, but they do stay afloat. I'm sure good damage control procedures help, but those ships seem pretty durable.
-
Wish she was doubled hulled. Maybe it would soften the blow...not alot but maybe.
-
Not to be morbid, but i have to say: The Burkes have shown themselves to be quite resilient to having large holes ripped in their sides. Ok, maybe not resilient, but they do stay afloat. I'm sure good damage control procedures help, but those ships seem pretty durable.
You aren't wrong. Really it's amazing just how tough most modern warships are- take the USS Stark, which really had no business surviving the two Exocets put into her by an Iraqi attack plane back in the 1980s.
(http://www.bluebird-electric.net/aircraft_carriers/aircraft_carriers_pictures/USS-Stark-Navy-Frigate-Persian-Gulf-Exocet-Missile-Attack-Iran-Iraq-War.jpg)
-
It seems that sometimes it's not the missiles ships have to worry about as much as the fires they start.
Of course even that isn't necessarily the end.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/USS_Belknap_collision_damage.jpg)
Belknap wasn't decommissioned until twenty years after this happened.
(and yes, I know it wasn't a missile, she collided with a carrier. My point stands!)
-
And that's what they call it the "Belknap pole", even though it's officially discouraged...
-
You aren't wrong. Really it's amazing just how tough most modern warships are- take the USS Stark, which really had no business surviving the two Exocets put into her by an Iraqi attack plane back in the 1980s.
make me wonder how tough ships would be if we took the same degree of effort to armor up modern ships that we used to for the ships back in ww2.. (i know the armor designs would be different.. but by comparison, modern ships are practically unarmored)
-
Pretty much all anti-ship missiles, including the Exocet, use shaped-charge warheads.
The conventional wisdom is that these punch through 6 times as much armour as their diameter. The Exocet has a diameter of 19 inches, so let's be conservative & say the warhead is 15 inches across (weighs . So that's capable of penetrating 90 inches of steel armour.
(Let's ignore the Soviet monsters with 40" diameter warheads, for a moment ...)
Kind of hard to put 91" of armour plate, and kind of expensive buying enough Chobham for the purpose. Not to mention I suspect Chobham might not fare well on a ship - it's not really into flexing.
And it's worth mentioning that the 165kg (close to 400lb) warhead of the Exocet is considered relatively small these days.
Interestingly, there are also semi-AP and HE-frag warheads available for the Exocet. I'm guessing the Argentinians were using HEAP, but ...
-
What about the sleeper weapons not many talk about? The Russians has those rocket propelled supercavitating torpedoes which were originally developed by the USSR. They still have them in service. Those things are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots.
Funny think is we've not heard much about them. I don't think they've seen combat. I don't think there anything in service that could counter one those weapons.
A while ago, I read originally it was thought/false reported(?) that Kursk disaster was result of a missfire from one of those torpedoes. However a dummy torpedo wield was to blame and there was a high-test peroxide (HTP) leak, which caused the kerosene fuel to explode. No survivors, many died because the oxygen used up.
Kursk salvaged pictured. Terrible thing to happen to any crew.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Kursk_wreck.jpg)
-
The problem with the supercavitating torpedo seems to be that it doesn't really do much that can't be done with a conventional torpedo. Sure, it's wicked fast and all, but submarines are already so vulnerable to conventional torpedoes that their only real defense is to not be seen first. Not only that, but conventional torpedoes carry larger warheads and have better range.
It seems like Supercavitating torpedoes simply aren't there yet, performance wise, and end up being more of a gimick than a practical weapon.
-
the russians mainly used it defensively, doctrine wise.. meant more for forcing an opponent to have to move (and thus cut the wires to their own torps)
-
Modern torpedoes aren't fire-and-forget?
-
they can be fired in multiple modes..
bearing only (aka "the ww1/ww2 method") where they follow a preplotted course. not popular anymore.
active homing is fire and forget, but it tends to have the downside of the torps banging away with their own sonar, and giving away locations.
or you can use wires to directly control the torp, letting you use your own passive sonar to guide the torp to the target. this is the preferred method, since torp motors are normally fairly stealthy. (or they can use active homing from the torps, and the sub's passive sonar for greater accuracy.. not common due to the tactical issues)
torps carry a couple dozen miles of wire themselves, and the sub usually has hundreds of miles of the stuff itself.
if the firing unit cuts the wires, the torps switch to active homing.. and may lose the target entirely in the process. certainly it reduces the over all accuracy, AND makes the torps more vulnerable to anti-torp countermeasures.
the supercav torps were basically meant to make an enemy (NATO) sub go "oh ****, torpedo" and have to start dodging and evading.. giving the soviet ship a chance to escape the now-suddenly-less-smart NATo torpedoes or run away entirely.
-
@worktroll - Aren't most antiship missile warheads HE-frag, precisely because there's little need for armour penetration these days?
@Wrangler - as pictured, the supercavitating torpedo also has the problem of pretty sensitive fuel... right now the Shkval torpedo is scoring 0-1 (OG) as far as kills are concerned :(
-
IIRC most ASM's are HE-FRAG warheads, the Soviets apparently developed a shaped charge warhead for their big ASMs to do horrid things to USN CVN's and any Iowa ships that got hit, but really if a NATO ship got hit by something like a AS-6 missile with its ton warhead and sheer kinetic energy of a multi-Mach impact, I doubt it would be coming home unless it was something like a CVN or a big assault ship. And even then, you'd not want to get slapped and tickled by more than two of them if you was a CVN.
(http://litnik.in.ua/images/stories/walkaround/obzori/ksr-5-Bams/08.jpg)
-
@worktroll - Aren't most antiship missile warheads HE-frag, precisely because there's little need for armour penetration these days?
Don't think of it as armor so much as structural penetration. The best way to kill a ship is poking a hole below the waterline; missiles have to do that by going through the top of the ship. Each deck, compartment, whatever, has to be cleared through as well as the hull; it's the reason the "carrier-killer" Kh-22/AS-4 "Kitchen" was necessary. Penetration on those monsters was up to 40 feet, and they'd open a roughly eighteen foot diameter circle in whatever they nailed at the point of impact. Considering that's 2200 pounds of RDX in a giant shaped-charge warhead, that's one hell of a hole to put in something.
And with a target the size of a Nimitz-class, you need one hell of a hole to kill it.
-
Some navies now have countermeasure anti-torpedo torpedoes (CAT), these are designed to take out the "wake homing torpedoes". Apparently some of the US Carriers have them already. I don't know how effective they are.
The picture of a prototype launcher on board USS George H Bush (CVN-77) in 2013.
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CAT-Launch-from-CVN77.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cm2JSw_-p2E/WAdsPOfDq_I/AAAAAAACV14/OmNxuoWeqFc84Rs9bsJkSkyUBoaOZU4rACLcB/s1600/57e27123c3618807398b4687.jpg)
-
I don't know how effective they are.
I would imagine "more effective than bloody nothing" like the ABM defenses. It may not stop missiles 100% of the time with 1:1 efficiency, but I see six cells on that launcher there alone - that's a lot of second tries on the same incoming torp.
-
How many tries do you get? Similarly, how many can you fire at once without having them confuse each other?
-
Some navies now have countermeasure anti-torpedo torpedoes (CAT), these are designed to take out the "wake homing torpedoes". Apparently some of the US Carriers have them already. I don't know how effective they are.
I would imagine "more effective than bloody nothing" like the ABM defenses. It may not stop missiles 100% of the time with 1:1 efficiency, but I see six cells on that launcher there alone - that's a lot of second tries on the same incoming torp.
They may also help as distraction/decoys
-
I'd throw tin cans if I thought there was even a chance of keeping one of those monster Type 65s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_65_torpedo) from hitting me.
-
I'd throw tin cans if I thought there was even a chance of keeping one of those monster Type 65s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_65_torpedo) from hitting me.
In the world of suicidal killbots with hug fetishes, that's...pretty high on the threat meter. A thousand pounds of RDX underwater will ruin anyone's day, thank you hydrostatic shock.
-
USS Tripoli LHA-7, is christen and in the water last May.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Launch_of_USS_Tripoli_%28LHA-7%29_at_Pascagoula_on_1_May_2017.JPG)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Launch_of_USS_Tripoli_%28LHA-7%29_at_Huntington_Ingalls_Industries_in_Pascagoula_on_1_May_2017.JPG)
-
(https://www.navysite.de/lph/lph10_6.jpg)
LPH-10, her battered old namesake (which got her hull bashed in by Iraqi mines in 1991)
-
I suppose launching them down slipways isn't really practical for ships that big?
Is that how carriers are launched as well?
-
Back in WW2 they were usually launching carriers from slipways. The "ballast a drydock and float it out" is pretty standard for anything bigger than a frigate nowadays though. Offhand the biggest i've seen launched off slipways in recent decades were the LCS for the US and comparably-sized small frigates. Largest naval oddball launched down slipways in recent years were probably the Indian Visakhapatnam class destroyers at around 7500t FL.
-
Back in WW2 they were usually launching carriers from slipways.
Geez, is there any video of the effect on the opposite side of the channel?
-
Geez, is there any video of the effect on the opposite side of the channel?
Yeah, there was bubbly and highland dancing and so on... oh, probably not the Channel you meant ;D
(https://s26.postimg.org/wigvg342x/Prince-of-_Wales-_Naming.gif)
-
Geez, is there any video of the effect on the opposite side of the channel?
Can't think of a carrier launch video, but remember that the Essex really was the first time a purpose-built carrier approached capital-ship size. Prior to that you had either converted battleship hulls (Shinano, Kaga, Furious, etc.) or ships that were just several thousand tons smaller than their big-gun cousins (Yorktown, Hermes, etc.)- so the effects of a carrier launch are about the same as that of launching a battleship, give or take, which we DO have plenty of video of (Bismarck comes to mind).
Note though that it didn't always go well. Musashi's launch sent a significant wave to the far side of Nagasaki Bay, flooding a large number of homes- people who were forced to stay in their flooded homes by police because they weren't allowed outside until the hull was moved into its 'hangar' for continued work.
-
A modern carrier "launch" video would be pretty boring these days. It takes hours to flood a fixed dry dock and float one out...
-
HMS Caroline - The last light cruiser of World War I and only surviving ship to have fought battle of Jutland.
A C Class Cruiser, who upon her retirement in 2011, was 2nd oldest ship in the British Navy.
(https://thecrusoes.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/p6140740.jpg)
There was bit of debate on restoring her original appearance, however reconstruction was thrown out opping to maintain her current appearance. This includes her aft side reflecting her later career as stone frigate aka part of a base.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/HMS_%27Caroline%27%2C_Alexandra_Dock_Belfast_-_geograph.org.uk_-_660308.jpg)
-
Speaking of "stone frigates" HMS Diamond Rock
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Diamond_Rock.jpg)
The Royal Navy still regards HMS Diamond Rock as being in commission. Therefore, Royal Navy ships are required, when passing the island, to show due respect, personnel on the upper deck to stand at attention and face the rock whilst the bridge salutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Rock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Rock)
-
A modern carrier "launch" video would be pretty boring these days. It takes hours to flood a fixed dry dock and float one out...
time lapse!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW9HpDKegK4
it is amazing how much the construction of a carrier looks like me assembling Lego's
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Rock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Rock)
Hood named a fort a ship and named a ship Fort Diamond
How drunk exactly was Hood?!?! ;D
-
The port was purely for medicinal purposes ^-^
-
The port was purely for medicinal purposes ^-^
They used to say the same thing about Tortuga.
-
Does this dock make my bum look big?
(https://scontent.fapa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21616125_1997483323866290_6399778841105678328_n.jpg?oh=dd811e166676e4f27ffe5fa3144288fb&oe=5A566A5F)
-
Does this dock make my bum look big?
(https://scontent.fapa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21616125_1997483323866290_6399778841105678328_n.jpg?oh=dd811e166676e4f27ffe5fa3144288fb&oe=5A566A5F)
*triggered* Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh, Splotila naveki velikaya Rus’!
Da zdravstvuyet sozdanny voley narodov, Yediny, moguchiy Sovetskiy Soyuz!
-
Does this dock make my bum look big?
Delta IV Double Wide...
(https://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/Russian-Delta-IV-SSBN.jpg)
Delta IV - Single Sided. ;)
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ip0vDxc-Bes/TetpHNCaGdI/AAAAAAAAAD0/7ZzxJIerRVQ/s1600/AA1+black+pearl+2.jpg)
Happy Pirate's day
-
Does this dock make my bum look big?
(https://scontent.fapa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21616125_1997483323866290_6399778841105678328_n.jpg?oh=dd811e166676e4f27ffe5fa3144288fb&oe=5A566A5F)
I'm just shuddering at the extra noise from the props from having to go through air. Hopefully, this is in the no-missiles and empty variable ballast tanks configuration.
And yes, she's the double-wide version of a Delta class boat.
-
(snip)
Happy Pirate's day
Happy Pirate's Day to you too O0
(http://sp.beritasatu.com/media/images/original/20110412110528461.jpg)
-
I'm just shuddering at the extra noise from the props from having to go through air. Hopefully, this is in the no-missiles and empty variable ballast tanks configuration.
And yes, she's the double-wide version of a Delta class boat.
actually i'm fairly certain that is a Typhoon.. the bulge under the conning tower gives it away.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Typhoon3.jpg)
-
I'm thinking that Typhoon is very light because I think there is a line where the waterline should be.
-
actually i'm fairly certain that is a Typhoon.. the bulge under the conning tower gives it away.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Typhoon3.jpg)
The Typhoon is a double-hulled Delta. Literally. More accurately, a squadron of four-five individual hulls in really close formation.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Typhoon_class_Schema.svg/2000px-Typhoon_class_Schema.svg.png)
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Typhoon_class_Schema.svg/2000px-Typhoon_class_Schema.svg.png)
Where's the cavitation tunnels for the pumpjets?`
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIja65dm9T_MwdExUHFLYfFDi-fAE_q81PsmAxM50azBSBWgv7nA)
W ;)
-
you can tell that Tom Clancy didn't have that graphic when he was writing the hunt for red october. the lack of any pressure compartment around the missiles kinda ruins the whole ending gunfight of the book. :)
-
Not to mention, two completely independent reactors, that's a hell of an odd design for a sub,.
-
They are, after all, the people who brought you the BTR-60 ...
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JsdiNLWSZ_s/UyiMD895_mI/AAAAAAAACfQ/AlpsmFMa0jA/s1600/BTR-70-59102_71215135_btr-7469.jpg)
"When one engine is not enough, Comrade, use two engine! Simples!"
-
That's a little less weird; there's decades of armored vehicles with more than one engine. Certainly explains why the Beaters were so big for how small their interiors are.
-
USS Forest Sherman DD-931, lead class of nine destroyers who were constructed during the mid-1950s.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/USS_Forrest_Sherman_%28DD-931%29_underway_c1956.jpg)
She had rather originate career with the US Navy. She did escort the Queen of England when her yacht cruised and toured the Great Lakes.
She had semi-charmed life after her decommissioning in early 1980s, where she was suppose to be scrapped in 1992 however the Quincy Shipyard in Mass went out business, then Navy decided to allow her to be take in as museum ship. However the organization trying set this up essentially failed get it done, she eventually was scrapped.
The Class originally was all gun Class, where pack of them were converted into Guided Missile Destroyers, removing both aft guns for single Mk 13 missile launcher, which was known to be used signature launcher on the later John Adams Class Guided Missile Destroyers and The Oliver Perry Class Frigates.
Two of the ships remain as museum, the USS Edson and the Turner Joy. Barry was a muesume ship but was removed from the Navy yard couple years ago and scrapped due to traffic bridge replacement making it impossible to maintain the ship.
-
Not to mention, two completely independent reactors, that's a hell of an odd design for a sub,.
Unique among western nuclear boat designs, USS Triton (SSRN-586) was the first built with two reactors, but only one reactor compartment and the ability to cross connect the steam plant, with either reactor powering both screws. She was also obsolete with the advent of the WF/E-1 Tracer and subsequent introduction of the E-2 Hawkeye AEW aircraft within a few years of commissioning.
Two reactors is pretty common for Russian boats, though. The separation of the plants though, is unique.
-
I saw this on a Facebook page about Planes That Never Were but this is HMS Habakkuk
-
Biggest mistake the Brits made with that project was not to leak its existence to Hitler. Hiter would have then ordered that the Third Reich build their own version which would have drawn massive amounts of resources away from the actual warfighting effort.
-
Biggest mistake the Brits made with that project was not to leak its existence to Hitler. Hiter would have then ordered that the Third Reich build their own version which would have drawn massive amounts of resources away from the actual warfighting effort.
Unfortunately the effectiveness of the Double Cross system meant that just about all of the German HunInt was controlled by MI5 and this would have sounded too crazy for them to believe.
-
Habbakuk is one of those 'just crazy enough this just might work' kind of ideas... had better and less-batshit-insane ideas not replaced the need. The concept was sound enough, I suppose- Pykrete (a wood pulp-infused ice) was remarkably tough, and between that and sheer size (and ease of repair, really), how do you kill it with torpedoes? It would have been abysmally slow- that carrier next to it in the above image would have literally been able to run rings around it, but it only needed to get to the points where land-based aircraft couldn't cover convoys effectively anyway- once there, Habbakuk doesn't NEED to go anywhere fast. It's less an 'aircraft carrier' than a mobile island, in concept.
It's also an enormous undertaking that was just as easily resolved by the escort carrier concept (just converting merchant hulls to have a flight deck and a small hangar!), and with that in mind one can't help but wonder in hindsight how Habbakuk ever was conceived in the first place as an idea when such a simple and effective solution as the CVE was just as practical- and tested, since converting merchant vessels to carriers had only been done for a few decades at this point.
Short version: Concept is viable, but stupid.
-
Not to mention, two completely independent reactors, that's a hell of an odd design for a sub,.
Not for a Soviet era sub, almost all of their designs were dual reactor, I think the only ones who were not were the attack boats from the Victors onwards.
-
Re: reactors, yeah, there's plenty of ships that have multiples - looking at you, Big E, with your eight A2Ws - but I emphasize 'completely independent' here. Two separate reactor compartments, completely isolated from each other and tied only into their own local screw. That's a hell of a redundant system, even in combat; you could arguably lose an entire reactor/powerplant compartment and, assuming buoyancy, still function.
-
Habbakuk is one of those 'just crazy enough this just might work' kind of ideas... had better and less-batshit-insane ideas not replaced the need. The concept was sound enough, I suppose- Pykrete (a wood pulp-infused ice) was remarkably tough, and between that and sheer size (and ease of repair, really), how do you kill it with torpedoes? It would have been abysmally slow- that carrier next to it in the above image would have literally been able to run rings around it, but it only needed to get to the points where land-based aircraft couldn't cover convoys effectively anyway- once there, Habbakuk doesn't NEED to go anywhere fast. It's less an 'aircraft carrier' than a mobile island, in concept.
It's also an enormous undertaking that was just as easily resolved by the escort carrier concept (just converting merchant hulls to have a flight deck and a small hangar!), and with that in mind one can't help but wonder in hindsight how Habbakuk ever was conceived in the first place as an idea when such a simple and effective solution as the CVE was just as practical- and tested, since converting merchant vessels to carriers had only been done for a few decades at this point.
Short version: Concept is viable, but stupid.
Problem was that it was supposed to help with the metal shortage when trying to do said concept would require so much metal for the refrigeration units.....
-
Research question. I know that on warships munitions are stored in dedicated armored compartments.
I'm assuming food would be in dedicated pantry rooms. Though I'm not sure how big those would be, or what they'd look like.
What about stuff like spare parts?
and would storage rooms for things like food and parts scale in size with the ship (bigger ships having bigger rooms for them), or in number (rooms stay roughly the same size, but bigger ships have more such rooms?)
-
Research question. I know that on warships munitions are stored in dedicated armored compartments.
I'm assuming food would be in dedicated pantry rooms. Though I'm not sure how big those would be, or what they'd look like.
What about stuff like spare parts?
A lot of the answer really depends on the size of the ship, and its role. An Italian cruiser wouldn't usually carry a ton of spare parts for the same reason as it didn't carry a great deal of fuel- why bother, we're never going more than a few hundred miles from home anyway! On the other hand, a German pocket battleship would often load up what seemed like enough parts to build another ship all over again- they would be gone for months on end, after all, and the Germans had very few friendly ports they could realistically call on.
I suppose in-general most things like this would be kept in carefully-inventoried storage rooms (after all, what use is a replacement valve for a boiler if you don't know where it is?), likely outside the main armor belt as a general rule. In situations like the German above, that would likely give way to being able to cram stuff into any space available (while still being meticulously tracked), simply because what other option is there?
Same with food- the setup is going to be very different depending on the ship and where it came from. If you ever want to see claustrophobia in machine form, look at a WWII submarine in a memorial (I personally recommend USS Lionfish at Fall River, MA)- but that only tells half the story. Those boats would leave port with what basically amounted to a second deck laid down over the real one, made of crates of food and other expendables- any nook, cranny, or crevice that wasn't absolutely needed for something else got stocked with food. By comparison, an aircraft carrier wasn't so worried about carrying ALL TEH NOMZ like that- despite having a crew several times the size of the sub, it also has much more space to hold everything, to the point that American carriers and such often had ice cream machines and such even! (Side note- destroyers that picked a downed pilot up often would 'hold him hostage', demanding a ransom of a hundred gallons or so of ice cream in exchange for returning him to his ship.)
What would such a room look like? Not much different than you'd expect. Walk-in coolers, stainless steel shelving (with securing lines to keep people from being killed by a falling can of peaches when the ship heels over in a hard turn), not overly dissimilar to what you'd find in a restaurant kitchen at the end of the day. Storage space is storage space.
-
Problem was that it was supposed to help with the metal shortage when trying to do said concept would require so much metal for the refrigeration units.....
I think the idea was that they could still build several of the ships for the metal equivalent of one conventional ship.. Still, not remotely practical in the long-term.
-
Looks like Lexington survived Harvey with little damage the museum reported.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/USS_Lexington_CV-16_SCB27C%2BSCB125.jpg)
This is her after her 1955 refit of her radar systems. You can see USS Midway and her long gone sistership, Franklin D Roosevelt in the background among others carriers.
-
I assumed Lex would be OK, just got the back side, any word on Texas?
Duh just go surf Dave
https://tpwd.texas.gov/state-parks/park-information/hurricane-harvey
-
I assumed Lex would be OK, just got the back side, any word on Texas?
Duh just go surf Dave
https://tpwd.texas.gov/state-parks/park-information/hurricane-harvey
I've seen nothing about her, but the Texas State Park server talks about it's other locations and their status.
I hope that's just them forgetting to mention her.
-
From what I see online the battleground and ship are fine, still some flooding,
Ship of course is still in trouble, the hurricane just didn't hurt her
-
Too bad they can't spring to drydock her at her berth. It would been better, but i don't think the state government wants spring for it unless there other issues going on.
-
Too bad they can't spring to drydock her at her berth. It would been better, but i don't think the state government wants spring for it unless there other issues going on.
Wasn't she developing serious leak issues from her hull being corroded?
-
Wasn't she developing serious leak issues from her hull being corroded?
That was part of the reason why they wanted take her into a dry berth. They were getting ready but something came up i guess. Properly money and politics.
-
With the ships getting older, it must be getting harder and harder to keep these ships looking good.
-
USS Texas's predecessor in 1898 off the Coast of Cuba during the Spanish-American War. One few pictures of her I was able to find that was photo in action. She bit rough around the edges here.
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=41754)
According to the report from 2010, regarding the Dry Berth was suppose to be completed this year. I guess it wasn't done. The reports only go 2012. (https://tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/?req=20101029b)
-
Interesting shot of a Regulus being prepared for test firing, on USS Grayback.
Interesting detail - the pressure dome under the fairing. Makes sense, never considered it.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Graybackmissle.jpg)
-
ah the Regulus Cruise Missile. the closest thing america got to a submersible carrier. probably a good thing the sub launched ballistic Missile came around, the Regulus was an unwieldy and dangerous thing operationally.
(and can you fix your image width? i've got a big monitor and even i can't see more than a tiny portion at once)
i've occasionally wondered if the 'penguin sub" in the 1966 TVshow based Batman movie wasn't inspired by the (recently decomissioned at the time) Regulus carrying subs. since it was a non-nuclear sub, but could fire missiles. they just used a ww2 sub model and stock footage of Polaris Missiles because that was what they could get. (presumably they borrowed a sub deck mockup for the last fight scene from one of the studio's ww2 films.)
(https://i0.wp.com/modelshipsinthecinema.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BatmanTheMovie00028.jpg)
-
i've occasionally wondered if the 'penguin sub" in the 1966 TVshow based Batman movie wasn't inspired by the (recently decommissioned at the time) Regulus carrying subs. since it was a non-nuclear sub, but could fire missiles. they just used a ww2 sub model and stock footage of Polaris Missiles because that was what they could get. (presumably they borrowed a sub deck mockup for the last fight scene from one of the studio's ww2 films.)
(https://i0.wp.com/modelshipsinthecinema.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BatmanTheMovie00028.jpg)
The Russians used to use diesel SSB's as part their fleet. Technically North Korea has one thou i serious doubt it in usable condition. China is reported to maintain one in their fleet as test ship for ICBMs, a Golf II Class SSB like this one below. She only has 3-missile tubes on her.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Image_Submarine_Golf_II_class.jpg/1280px-Image_Submarine_Golf_II_class.jpg)
-
yes, but the US Navy wouldn't be selling a Russian or Korean sub to a Mr. P. N. Guin in 1966, would they? ;)
-
On 21 September General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB) was awarded a USD5.1 billion contract by the Pentagon to complete designs for the lead Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN).
Ultimately 12 Columbia-class boats are planned to replace 14 ageing Ohio-class SSBNs. The Ohio class is to begin decommissioning in 2029, with the last boat scheduled for retirement in 2039.
Here's an artist's rendering of the finished product:
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/311/74311/1530498_-_main.jpg)
-
The sad thing about modern subs is that they all look the same. It's what's inside them that makes them unique (all the tech goodies, weapons systems et al.)
-
12 subs of the New Columbia class and with maybe 16 missiles tops.
THe Royal Navys new SSBNs may only have 12 missiles.
-
It's interesting that they're thinking about going with an X layout for the stern planes and rudder instead of the + layout.
-
12 subs of the New Columbia class and with maybe 16 missiles tops.
THe Royal Navys new SSBNs may only have 12 missiles.
And the 4 Triomphants with 16 M51 ICBMs and 6-10 MIRVs each.
Meaning at any 1 time the UK+EU has a capability of 2 subs with 200-250 MIRVs total, and the US by itself a bit more than twice that. Still more than enough to blast the world into a smoking cinder, mate.
-
Well if you max load the Tridents D5s with 12 warheads which I think it is capable you can get over 2304 warheads for the 12 ships, about half from the peak of the cold war.
The UK with the D5s with 12 warheads on 12 tubes on 4 ships it will be 576 warheads....more then the UK has in general.
The French max load out with 10 warheads in 16 tubes would be 640...more then France current stock pile.
I think if the Russians max load their Borey with 10 warheads a missile with the base model having 16 missiles and the upgrade having 20 tubes, on the 10 subs could have up to 1880 warheads, on the 10 subs.
So a far cry since 1990 but still more then enough to wipe out everything.
-
The improvements that continues to march on in technology mean the Armed Forces can get the same result or better with fewer warheads.
-
With the provisions of New START limiting the number of SLBM warheads, the Tridents on today's Ohios are all carrying less than 12 warheads anyway. So no actually capacity is being lost with less missiles.
I find it odd that Electric Boat is going back to putting the diving planes on the sail. Bow planes have been standard since the Improved Los Angeles, and continuing with the Seawolf and Virginia.
-
They're easier to maintain when they're out of the water (i.e., no dry dock required).
-
But their easily damaged in under-ice operations, which is why they were done away with to begin with.
-
But their easily damaged in under-ice operations, which is why they were done away with to begin with.
That was half the problem. The other half is that when you're on the surface, and you need to dive quickly, your bow planes aren't even in the water until the boat is almost totally under. Which means less control surfaces to force the sub down, which means slower dives. Bottom line, it's a crappy place to put the planes- going back to it is a really poor idea.
-
Only if you're planning to go under ice. We're not Russians.
-
12 subs of the New Columbia class and with maybe 16 missiles tops.
THe Royal Navys new SSBNs may only have 12 missiles.
The Columbia class and new RN SSBN are supposed to share a "Common Missile Compartment" between both. Both classes of boat will carry the same number of missiles, if that doesn't get revised.
-
UK's next SSBN, the Dreadnought Class SSBN.
(https://ukdjstatic-b4d.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Successor3_revision-1-1021x580.jpg)
She looks wide in this concept picture. Wider than the Columbia?
-
I believe HMS
Dementor Dreadnought's sail is just smaller compared to the rest of the boat. The new boats will displace something like 2,000 tons more than the current Vanguard-class SSBNs.
that being said... "it's only a model"...
-
UK's next SSBN, the Dreadnought Class SSBN.
She looks wide in this concept picture. Wider than the Columbia?
It's the Typhoon-like flat deck that throws off the visual. Wonder why they're going with that; is she a twin-hull or just something that isn't intended to go all that deep - or is that because of a big bare minimum in beam they can't get around with any kind of SLBM load?
-
I'm surprised they don't convert more Ohio's into SSGN's by just filling their launch bays with Tommahawks, that way you'd get a lot more use out of them than as a pure deterrent, and with the range of the TLAM they'd not have to really risk their safety either.
For example if things do, heaven forbid, go hot on a certain peninsular in south east Asia, Tommahawk spam from 4 - 6 Ohio's could be very effective.
-
I'm surprised they don't convert more Ohio's into SSGN's by just filling their launch bays with Tommahawks, that way you'd get a lot more use out of them than as a pure deterrent, and with the range of the TLAM they'd not have to really risk their safety either.
For example if things do, heaven forbid, go hot on a certain peninsular in south east Asia, Tommahawk spam from 4 - 6 Ohio's could be very effective.
Four of the Ohios have been converted to SSGNs. The problem is that some of the hulls are upwards of 40 years old with the youngest being 20 years old.
-
Dreadnought is 17,200t v 18,750t for the Ohio class
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/submarines/future-submarines/successor-class
-
I'm surprised they don't convert more Ohio's into SSGN's by just filling their launch bays with Tommahawks, that way you'd get a lot more use out of them than as a pure deterrent, and with the range of the TLAM they'd not have to really risk their safety either.
For example if things do, heaven forbid, go hot on a certain peninsular in south east Asia, Tommahawk spam from 4 - 6 Ohio's could be very effective.
Wrote a long post which was swallowed. So in short,
1) Cost, add an Ohio-SSGN either means add to the budget or take away an SSN or SSBN (!)
2) DDGs and CGs do Tomahawk strikes, its handy to have a 1st-wave surprise like an Ohio-SSGN somewhere, but
3) using an Ohio as an SSGN has its own problems, they have to shoot and scoot as it would be bad for an Ohio to be tracked, and how often does the US expend 150 Tomahawks (about 4.5% of the total Tomahawk inventory) on a single mission?
so having a couple around is indeed handy, but having more starts outweighing the cost-benefit ratio
I believe USS Ohio herself is one of the SSGN converts.
-
UK's next SSBN, the Dreadnought Class SSBN.
SNIP
She looks wide in this concept picture. Wider than the Columbia?
I think that image may have been stretched. If you go to the Royal Navy website, it does not appear to be as wide https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/submarines/future-submarines/successor-class (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/submarines/future-submarines/successor-class)
-
Yeah, Ohios ain't Omnis. It may seem like a straightforward weapons swap, but I'm given to understand that turning an SSBN into an SSGN is almost as expensive as building a new SSN.
I believe USS Ohio herself is one of the SSGN converts.
Yup. Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Georgia. They're easy to remember by the acronym they make, which probably mirrors the feelings of anyone that saw an SSGN's Alpha Strike emerge from the water. :)
-
Yeah, Ohios ain't Omnis. It may seem like a straightforward weapons swap, but I'm given to understand that turning an SSBN into an SSGN is almost as expensive as building a new SSN.
At the time, the boats themselves were still considered to be in their good years- they just needed to retire due to treaty numbers, so the SSGN idea was a 'hey, Plan B!' idea rather than benching them for good. Money wasn't the issue so much as just finding a use for boats that weren't ready for the boneyard structurally.
That said, I doubt we'll see more SSGNs happen either- it's not a cheap conversion, and the Ohios- even the younger hulls- are getting long in the tooth now. The raw power one of them can project is impressive, but if the concept continues past these four hulls I'd expect it to be a keel-up build, or at least something based more on the Virginia, rather than another SSBN conversion.
But hey, since we're talking SSGNs, let's keep the picture part of the thread going while we're at it... ;)
(http://navaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/russia-to-equip-nuclear-powered-oscar-class-submarines-with-kalibr-cruise-missiles.jpg)
-
There's a random thought. I would assume that, for safety reasons, when a ship's in-dock for any serious downtime the weapons are offloaded. Missiles, cannon rounds, that sort of thing. What about SLBMs? Those are some pretty massive items to pull out and stick back in, that can't be an easy operation. Then again, where the hell do you store such a thing anyway? A Trident II is 45 feet long and 65 tons of missile body, canned sunshine, and a huge amount of dehydrated zoom juice; it's not gonna just get dropped in a shipping crate or anything.
-
I would think it depends on the nature of the port visit. A stop in to load up on consumables and such before heading back out on patrol? Hell no. A full drydock refit? Hell YES.
Remember that many (not all as you can see, but many) weapons like this are in sealed containers, so its' as simple as just removing the container. Not exactly a five-minute job for a technician, but not as dangerous or difficult as one might think either.
As for where to store them, most boomers stop off at dedicated facilities (such as the one in Bangor, Maine), which will generally have safe places to store weapons like ICBMs and the like, with plenty of security and privacy.
-
As for where to store them, most boomers stop off at dedicated facilities (such as the one in Bangor, Maine), which will generally have safe places to store weapons like ICBMs and the like, with plenty of security and privacy.
I think there are usually only 1 or 2 boomer yards, and that would be another 1 of the reasons why more SSGNs begin to be impracticable - Ohio flushes her 150-missile load (which admittedly would pulverise most any single target even under an AA/AD umbrella) then has to go all the way back home to re-arm in privacy. Whereas a Burke DDG can call in at the nearest forward base, load up with stockpiled or airflown Tomahawks and go right back.
-
At the time, the boats themselves were still considered to be in their good years- they just needed to retire due to treaty numbers, so the SSGN idea was a 'hey, Plan B!' idea rather than benching them for good. Money wasn't the issue so much as just finding a use for boats that weren't ready for the boneyard structurally.
That said, I doubt we'll see more SSGNs happen either- it's not a cheap conversion, and the Ohios- even the younger hulls- are getting long in the tooth now. The raw power one of them can project is impressive, but if the concept continues past these four hulls I'd expect it to be a keel-up build, or at least something based more on the Virginia, rather than another SSBN conversion.
actually, i believe the planned SSBN(X)'s are being designed to be dual role, with the ability to slot in a plug of 6 Tomahawks in the SLBM tube instead of the ballistic missile. leveraging the "Virginia payload module" system on the Block III Virginia's, where the 12 tomahawk VLS tubes were replaced with two large SLBM sized tubes in the bow. not big enough for an actual SLBM, they house plugs of missiles.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/df/74/58/df745825b857fa719df86cdaf0e4c14b.jpg)
the idea being that this way the ships can be given different payloads more easily, since new missiles and systems aren't restricted to tomahawk dimensions. so if someone comes upw with a UAV or drone sub that can be carriered and launched from a SLBM tube for example, they could fit it. it also makes reloading easier, since you can just lift the whole payload module in and out instead of having to do each missile separately.
the next planned production run of Virginia's (SSN-802 onwards) will be lengthened versions with an additional 4 module tubes fitte, making them pocket SSGN's.
(http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2015/june/GDEB_Virginia_class_payload_module_VPM.jpg)
they already are working on the SSBN(X) sub design: the Columbia class (http://)
-
I would think it depends on the nature of the port visit. A stop in to load up on consumables and such before heading back out on patrol? Hell no. A full drydock refit? Hell YES.
Oh yeah. Like I said, serious downtime, not a port-call but those typical overhauls or whatever. Just strikes me that you'd need a pretty significant crane system to draw the whole missile cocoon (for lack of a better term) out of it and move to storage somewhere.
Amusingly, in Battletech rules, a CM-120 weighs as much per shot as four Arrow IV systems. Someone's playing Battletech...
-
I keep hearing the modular setup (Tomahawks, Tridents, whatever) is an option for the next boats, but... honestly, I'm not a fan. An SSBN is the most powerful weapon on planet Earth- if you move one next to someone else's coastline, that's a bold, threatening statement. By the same measure, if you want to use those cruise missiles, you need to get a hell of a lot closer than an SLBM requires (a few hundred miles rather than a few thousand). So if we move our hypothetical omni-boomer to the coast of Absurdistan, they have no way of knowing if the payload on the boat is cruise missiles SLBMs, kitchen sinks, or whatever else. By accident or by design, it's casually threatening your opponent with weapons that are best left in the 'MAD' section of the book, simply because of the ambiguity of what is being carried.
-
Well, the multi-purpose launcher idea could also be a reaction to what happened with the Ohios. The US and Russia have been, haltingly, managing to reduce their number of warheads, missiles, and launchers over the past few decades. If we manage another round of reductions, its entirely possible the Columbias could end up in the same situation where we have a boat that isn't anywhere near used up, but we can't have it carrying nukes anymore. Even if most boats never use it and the system doesn't get qualified to carry anything but nukes for a decade or two it is still probably better to at least make the design considerations now rather than trying to shoehorn them in at a later date.
-
By accident or by design, it's casually threatening your opponent with weapons that are best left in the 'MAD' section of the book, simply because of the ambiguity of what is being carried.
You have a point, and that's another strike against Ohio-SSGN.
However, this is sorta-kinda Mk 41 VLS for subs, production-wise there's an advantage to building just 1 kind of missile launcher across your SSN and SSGN fleet, and note the part about deploying USVs and swimmers. Ideally too one's enemy would never know whether the 100-something cruise missiles suddenly appearing in the sky came from a pair of Virginias or a single Columbia. The threat of nuclear war would be less of a problem due to missile flight profiles.
-
The only real need you'd have for a modular VLS system, IMO, is for things other than Tomahawks - granted, a follow-on cruise missile would be one of those things, but surface ships run mostly antiair capabilities outside their land-attack stuff. Submarines don't have that capability, because they don't have the radars required to detect threats and deal with it with Standards or Sea Sparrow quad-packs. They dive and hold up a little placard saying "we are a whale fart, please move along" and really don't have much need at all to surface in any kind of combat situation. Let the surface ships worry about the enemy air power, your subs are primarily there to make sure there's no other whale farts in the ocean. Giving them some cruise missiles to keep land targets honest even when they can't hear a whale fart is a plus, but it's more a supplementary thing.
Now, loading a few TASM-followups would be funny, because nothing gets underwear colors changed faster than a combined cruise missile and torpedo strike. But really, there's not a navy out there for the USN to seriously consider a large-scale high-capability threat. Yes, a few nations are coming along, but 95% of the world's navies are green-water at best, with a little blue-water capability. Not any serious blue-water power projection in significant numbers. And that 5% is mostly allied to us, though "plan for anything."
-
And Australia is the only US ally that has not fought against the US at some stage ^-^
We also have Collin-class submarines, including the HMAS Waller (SSG75) that has managed to "sink" a couple of USN amphibious assault ships, a Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine and an USN aircraft carrier during different joint exercises.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/HMAS_Waller_%28SSG_75%29.jpg)
-
And here is Waller's sister boat HMAS Rankin (SSG78) in action versus USN https://youtu.be/nqFVOL7mLd4 (https://youtu.be/nqFVOL7mLd4)
-
(https://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2015/july/Vietnam_Project_1241.8_Tarantul_IV_missile_corvette.jpg)
I just felt like sharing a Tarantul-class corvette. Carry on.
-
And here's a pic of the INS Kamorta, India's latest class of corvettes,
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/INS_Kamorta_%28P28%29_during_trials.JPG)
the INS Shivalik, their latest frigate, on her maiden voyage,
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Shivalik_Maiden_Sortie.jpg)
and the INS Kolkata, along with HMS Defender
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/The_Indian_Navy_destroyer_INS_Kolkata_%28D63%29_and_the_British_Navy_destroyer_HMS_Defender_%28D36%29_steam_alongside_the_Ticonderoga-class_guided-missile_cruiser_USS_Antietam_%28CG_54%29_during_an_exercise.JPG)
-
That Tarantul looks so much cooler than its cousin the Pauk. But I wouldn't even call it a corvette, more like a FAC(M).
P.S. that's apparently a Vietnamese ship. Didn't know there was such sexy firepower in the region...
The only real need you'd have for a modular VLS system, IMO, is for things other than Tomahawks - granted, a follow-on cruise missile would be one of those things, but surface ships run mostly antiair capabilities outside their land-attack stuff...
...But really, there's not a navy out there for the USN to seriously consider a large-scale high-capability threat. Yes, a few nations are coming along, but 95% of the world's navies are green-water at best, with a little blue-water capability. Not any serious blue-water power projection in significant numbers. And that 5% is mostly allied to us, though "plan for anything."
I thought the same thing about submarines-vs-aircraft till recently when someone pointed out the Germans are developing a sub-launched IRIS-T SAM... but anyway I wasn't talking about putting SAMs on boats, I was saying the Common-Modular-Payload-thingamajiggy is to submarines as Mk 41 was to surface combatants - kinda.
"Plan for anything" is right. Other than the usual uncontrollable hotspots the world is generally far more peaceful than it has been since WW2. If it is to be kept that way, that old saw applies: si vis pacem, para bellum.
-
What cooler is you can visit actual Tarantul Class Ship in the United States.
The former East German Missile Corvette, Hiddensee. Only ship of her kind to be part of the United States Navy (for research purposes.) Now snugly moorned between the WWII Era Warships, USS Massachusetts and the USS Lionfish in Battleship Cove in Fall River, Massachusetts.
(http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/62569795.jpg)
-
so that's what that ship was. I was wondering why there was a random Soviet warship next to the Massachusetts when i visited her last year.
-
For some reason, the USS Coronado, one of the LCS homeported here, is growing on me:
(https://static.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/1610/2904070/1000w_q95.jpg)
And, yes, those are quad Harpoons mounted fore.
-
For some reason, the USS Coronado, one of the LCS homeported here, is growing on me:
(https://static.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/1610/2904070/1000w_q95.jpg)
And, yes, those are quad Harpoons mounted fore.
Wow you're in my neck of woods too?
Coronado recently finished exercises with the Singapore Navy, and began exercises with the Malaysian Navy on 21 Sept.
-
Is that a MQ-8 Fire Scout operating from/to the Coronado?
-
Appears so, she's supposed to carry 1 or 2 of them
-
Not totally sure what it is about the Independence Class, maybe just that it's a different shape, but I like the overall looks of it. Now if only it was built up into a full combatant.
-
is there are land attack version of the ship launched Harpoon?
I know that there is a land attack version of the air launched one
I just worry that in the modern day and age you would want to fire a heavier salvo of missiles than just 4 at someone if you want a good chance of connecting
-
is there are land attack version of the ship launched Harpoon?
I know that there is a land attack version of the air launched one
I just worry that in the modern day and age you would want to fire a heavier salvo of missiles than just 4 at someone if you want a good chance of connecting
I think it was the SLAM ATA, seems most newer versions have both Ship and Land attack capability.
-
is there are land attack version of the ship launched Harpoon?
I know that there is a land attack version of the air launched one
I just worry that in the modern day and age you would want to fire a heavier salvo of missiles than just 4 at someone if you want a good chance of connecting
Yes there is, but the Harpoon is not the most capable of missiles anymore, even with the latest upgrades. Bear in mind though, LCS are littoral combat ships, not deep water combatants. In the littoral environment, ASCMs are pretty useless.
For my picture, here's HMAS Perth, making sweet love to the first foreign port I ever visited, Hobart.
-
Well, the sign did say "Welcome". :))
-
For my picture, here's HMAS Perth, making sweet love to the first foreign port I ever visited, Hobart.
Tasmania is a foreign land for an Australian?
-
Not totally sure what it is about the Independence Class, maybe just that it's a different shape, but I like the overall looks of it. Now if only it was built up into a full combatant.
I know what you mean about the shape. It just looks...good. I think the sharp, pointed, dagger-like prow is what really does it for me.
However, I don't necessarily agree about building it up into a full combatant. I thought it was actually a rather novel idea for the navy to build a non-transport ship that didn't try to do everything all at once. I mean, if you insist on having anti-air, anti-sub, and surface warfare equipment all at once on every ship that isn't a glorified cargo hauler or an aircraft carrier, it is pretty tough to make a 'small' ship. I thought it was a useful effort to try making a ship that didn't try to be everything at once and see how it worked out. Now, it may have turned out that operation in the LIttorals is still super-dangerous if your opponent isn't a third-world failed state, and you really do need all those packages at once for that job, but I think it was still a worthwhile attempt to learn how to use a smaller boat that can't do everything.
Personally, I would argue to keep the Independence class around and give up on the surface combatant role. Instead, I would focus on the mine and/or anti-sub role, and use the unusually large flight deck to support multiple drones with various radar and sonar capabilities. Drones are perfect for boring, methodical work like mine sweeping. I guess I'm basically saying, make it a sensor hub and drone support boat. It has the space to bunker more aviation fuel if needed, and that flight deck should be enough to launch and land three or four fire scouts at one time. You can leave the deck gun and the SeaRAM on so it isn't totally defenseless, but leave the Harpoons and Bushmaster cannon mounts at home. It isn't a perfect idea, but it makes sense to me.
-
Tasmania is a foreign land for an Australian?
Technically, it is overseas ...
-
I know what you mean about the shape. It just looks...good. I think the sharp, pointed, dagger-like prow is what really does it for me.
However, I don't necessarily agree about building it up into a full combatant. I thought it was actually a rather novel idea for the navy to build a non-transport ship that didn't try to do everything all at once. I mean, if you insist on having anti-air, anti-sub, and surface warfare equipment all at once on every ship that isn't a glorified cargo hauler or an aircraft carrier, it is pretty tough to make a 'small' ship. I thought it was a useful effort to try making a ship that didn't try to be everything at once and see how it worked out. Now, it may have turned out that operation in the LIttorals is still super-dangerous if your opponent isn't a third-world failed state, and you really do need all those packages at once for that job, but I think it was still a worthwhile attempt to learn how to use a smaller boat that can't do everything.
Personally, I would argue to keep the Independence class around and give up on the surface combatant role. Instead, I would focus on the mine and/or anti-sub role, and use the unusually large flight deck to support multiple drones with various radar and sonar capabilities. Drones are perfect for boring, methodical work like mine sweeping. I guess I'm basically saying, make it a sensor hub and drone support boat. It has the space to bunker more aviation fuel if needed, and that flight deck should be enough to launch and land three or four fire scouts at one time. You can leave the deck gun and the SeaRAM on so it isn't totally defenseless, but leave the Harpoons and Bushmaster cannon mounts at home. It isn't a perfect idea, but it makes sense to me.
I think experience is showing that for "police" or anti-piracy duties, very little is needed to be an effective surface combatant
For blue water operations, the ideal anti-surface combatant is probably a sneaky SSN
For littoral operations, small size may be best but for the USN this is going to be hard as the ships will be deployed away from home and so can't be as small or as neat as something designed to fight close to home - this was the traditional problem the RN had against the German, French and Italian Navies at various points
-
@sadlerbw - it might have been a good idea before they merged 3 separate ships - MCM, Perry-can 2.0, and a newfangled disposable FAC (M) idea more Soviet than American in doctrine that would never jive with national values - into 1 boat. Now that water is long past the bridge, but what can be salvaged out of it is possibly a decent upcoming frigate program. Thems the breaks.
-
I know what you mean about the shape. It just looks...good. I think the sharp, pointed, dagger-like prow is what really does it for me.
However, I don't necessarily agree about building it up into a full combatant. I thought it was actually a rather novel idea for the navy to build a non-transport ship that didn't try to do everything all at once. I mean, if you insist on having anti-air, anti-sub, and surface warfare equipment all at once on every ship that isn't a glorified cargo hauler or an aircraft carrier, it is pretty tough to make a 'small' ship. I thought it was a useful effort to try making a ship that didn't try to be everything at once and see how it worked out. Now, it may have turned out that operation in the LIttorals is still super-dangerous if your opponent isn't a third-world failed state, and you really do need all those packages at once for that job, but I think it was still a worthwhile attempt to learn how to use a smaller boat that can't do everything.
Personally, I would argue to keep the Independence class around and give up on the surface combatant role. Instead, I would focus on the mine and/or anti-sub role, and use the unusually large flight deck to support multiple drones with various radar and sonar capabilities. Drones are perfect for boring, methodical work like mine sweeping. I guess I'm basically saying, make it a sensor hub and drone support boat. It has the space to bunker more aviation fuel if needed, and that flight deck should be enough to launch and land three or four fire scouts at one time. You can leave the deck gun and the SeaRAM on so it isn't totally defenseless, but leave the Harpoons and Bushmaster cannon mounts at home. It isn't a perfect idea, but it makes sense to me.
Oh I wasn't necessarily thinking of making those at that size a full-scale combatant, but something bigger, with the same or similar shape. Of course I don't think there's a lot of room to go up in size before hitting Burke-class size. I'd say a better size might be as a future Tico replacement, but I'm not sure if there's even plans for that. It looks like things might be Supercarrier > Amphib > Burke > Frigate/LCS.
And since this is the picture thread, an image of a proposed "Frigate-sized" Independence Class
(http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/foundry/image/?q=60&url=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1492019710082-austal-frigate-rendering-sea-air-space-2017-1024x666.jpg)
-
The FFG sized Independance looks pretty neat.
-
I was under the impression the size of the ship was not increasing for the current proposal. Those ships fit completely the builting for assembley except the mast.
The image looks like it has way to many Harpoon launchers. :o
-
I don't know... that shape looks like it would be a pain to moor...
-
I was under the impression the size of the ship was not increasing for the current proposal. Those ships fit completely the builting for assembley except the mast.
The image looks like it has way to many Harpoon launchers. :o
the Small Surface combatant program (aka the LCS-frigate) didn't do any major changes to the hull, it basically just will upgun them with anti-ship missiles, give them a long range radar to aim said missiles, and gave it the ASW "module" package as a standard fitting. the refit would also remove most of the systems that allow the mission modules to be swapped out, as well as the built in systems designed to operate with the mine clearance module package.
only a few of the current LCS fleet will be retained in the original intended role, with the modular mission packages intact. the Harpoon launchers are going to be be a standard for both the LCS and SSC models, but the SSC models are supposed to have a pair of quad tube launchers, instead of the dual tube launchers seen in the pic above.
the refit of current ships will be the "block 0" version, while debate over possible additional changes is underway for a "block 1" model, which currently is the same size but is intended to include some additional anti-aircraft/point defense (SeaRAM is the current plan) and possibly a small VLS emplacement instead of the Harpoon missiles.
though that "block 1" is possibly not going to happen, since the Secretary of Defense has instructed the navy to look into reducing the order size for both versions of the LCS and SSC.
personally i would leave the trimaran Independence class as the Littorial combat ship model and do the SSC/frigate refit to the Freedom class.. the traditional hullform ought to make the freedom class a bit easier to use in the deep ocean, and ought to leave more room for fitting in additional systems (which lockheed has already done the design work on, as part of their efforts to sell ships overseas)
and this way the two classes aren't competing with each other and tangling up each other's logistics.
-
USN BuShips - kitbashing Harpoon quadpacks wherever they will fit since 1980 ;D
Not sure space or weight budget exists to simply tack on ESSMs like that. I agree they look sexy and scifi but the Freedom class may be less difficult to lengthen... perhaps...
-
I don't know... that shape looks like it would be a pain to moor...
It is always the practical crap that gets you in the end, doesn't it?
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/tas-new-icebreaker-named/8999738 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/tas-new-icebreaker-named/8999738) What? We did not call it Boaty McBoatface or Icy McIceface?
Introducing RSV Nuyina (Australia's new icebreaking ship, because when you think Australia, you think ice :) )
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9000026-3x2-940x627.jpg)
-
It wasn't named Boaty McBoatface because it wasn't proper. Even If it won the contest.
-
Wow you're in my neck of woods too?
Coronado recently finished exercises with the Singapore Navy, and began exercises with the Malaysian Navy on 21 Sept.
San Diego?
-
San Diego?
Oops. I read "homeported" as "deployed" ;D
-
I don't know... that shape looks like it would be a pain to moor...
Here's the impendence docked at Key West
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/USS_Independence_LCS-2_at_pierce_%28cropped%29.jpg)
-
Now I'm wondering how they get line 1 over... More questions for folks at work...
-
Oops. I read "homeported" as "deployed" ;D
No biggie. :)
So far, all the Independence class LCS that have been completed have been assigned San Diego as their home port. Evidently they work better in the Pacific, and the Freedom class works better in the Atlantic.
-
Interesting article about the future of LCS (it has a few pictures!)
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/lcs-lives-they-still-count-in-age-of-frigates/
Who knows how accurate it is, but it basically says, they are going to add everything short of air defence and totally drop mine sweeping capabilities for the last 20 ships of the class so that hose boats will end up slower, but capable of doing surface warfare and anti-sub duties on their own, and be able to act as spotters for the bigger air defence ships. The article claims that adding full air defence capabilities is where the cost of ship starts to rise dramatically, so if you leave it out, you can still be small. You can’t be small and fast, but you can be small and not hideously expensive.
As for the existing LCS hulls, the prediction was that the Independence class boats would become dedicated mine hunters, and the Freedoms would basically be littoral partial boats to chase down fast, unarmed boats. That makes some sense as the Freedom ended up being the faster of the two designs.
The other thing that I personally found interesting is that the article and supporting images seem to indicate that the VLS naval hellfire is operational! I knew the Navy had been working on a small VLS box to launch Hellfire missiles as a cheap, surface-to-surface missile option, but I didn’t know it was that har along. It’s actually a really cool addition since the Hellfire doesn’t need a radar to guide it like the little SeaRAM missiles or the bigger harpoons. Plus, they are WAAAAAY cheaper than harpoons for smaller/closer threats.
Check out some of the testing in action:
https://youtu.be/pm8uH4HHP4w
-
Tasmania is a foreign land for an Australian?
Sailors of the RAN tend to count it as a foreign port, because... Tasmania... Believe me, I'd be breaking several forum rules if I told you the things I was told about Tassie when I joined up. Can't abuse the Tasweigians at work any more, not that any of us ever meant it.
If I'm being genuine, Hobart was the first port I ever pulled into, but my first international port was Surabaya. As an added bonus, we got to watch riots from the comfort of a pub. Sometimes I wonder how I ever survived being a young sailor.
As to my first lady of the sea, see attached. :-)
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/tas-new-icebreaker-named/8999738 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/tas-new-icebreaker-named/8999738) What? We did not call it Boaty McBoatface or Icy McIceface?
Introducing RSV Nuyina (Australia's new icebreaking ship, because when you think Australia, you think ice :) )
You do realise that Australia has responsibility for roughly 40% of Antarctica right?
Now I'm wondering how they get line 1 over... More questions for folks at work...
It's likely the last line passed, so not far to throw a heaving line. :-)
It wasn't named Boaty McBoatface because it wasn't proper. Even If it won the contest.
Pretty sure it was a Brittish ship that was supposed to be named Boaty McBoatface, not the Aussie one. That one ended up being called the far more appropriate Sir David Attenborough.
-
You do realise that Australia has responsibility for roughly 40% of Antarctica right?
Yes I do. Had the privilege of serving in the RAAF with an officer who had flown to Antarctica to do the airfield survey, another who help design the new ice runway and another civilian former colleague who currently in Antarctica looking after the new sewage treatment plant. Yep us civil engineers get all the fun jobs ;D
-
@sadlerbw - First Hellfire VLS launch was earlier this year, from USS Detroit
(https://s26.postimg.org/5di1o6nrd/q_70_w_1920_url_https_timedotcom.files.wordpr.jpg)
-
@sadlerbw - First Hellfire VLS launch was earlier this year, from USS Detroit
(https://s26.postimg.org/5di1o6nrd/q_70_w_1920_url_https_timedotcom.files.wordpr.jpg)
Truly, the Hellfire is one of the multi-service success stories here in the US. I'm pretty sure it is now used by all of the major branches of the military save the Coast Guard. The Army and Marines use them on helos and I think a ground vehicle or two, the Air Force uses them on drones, and has the capability to mount them to some manned aircraft as well, and now the Navy is using them as baby harpoons in VLS mountings. Turns out that being able to put 100lbs of high-ex anywhere you want in a 5-mile radius for less than $100k per shot is something that ALL of our branches of service agree is pretty darn useful.
-
It’s actually a really cool addition since the Hellfire doesn’t need a radar to guide it like the little SeaRAM missiles or the bigger harpoons.
Neither RAM nor Harpoon require radar guidance.
RAM in particular only requires your launcher to be slewed towards the target vector and then to start firing till you deem you have enough missiles in the air; whether you decide that vector by radar, EO, other means or plain luck is up to you. The missiles will decide on their target on their own and sequentially - including inflight retargeting - destroy any target fitting its search pattern along that vector.
What Hellfire has over RAM - aside from the somewhat lower price - is the possibility of target discrimination by inserting a specific radar picture to track and destroy. Which, you guess it, requires a fire control radar on the launch ship.
As for Hellfire, it should be noted that while exact range is classified yet to be determined firing Hellfire without any sort of booster from a VLS will give it an atrociously low range (probably around 2-3 miles, with a minimum range applying too).
-
Pretty sure it was a Brittish ship that was supposed to be named Boaty McBoatface, not the Aussie one. That one ended up being called the far more appropriate Sir David Attenborough.
Correct - Boaty McBoatface is one of it's ROV's and has already seen service
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/40445215 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/40445215)
-
A 5 mile range of the missile is really short. Might need a longer range missile to be more useful.
-
Neither RAM nor Harpoon require radar guidance.
Harpoon does not require radar guidance.. but it does require a long range radar on the firing ship to detect and target enemies at the kind of ranges harpoon is capable of.
-
No biggie. :)
So far, all the Independence class LCS that have been completed have been assigned San Diego as their home port. Evidently they work better in the Pacific, and the Freedom class works better in the Atlantic.
It's also hull size. Apparently the trimaran doesn't maneuver well enough inside the basin at Mayport. That's the official line from the squadron.
-
You folks are correct. I had my guidance systems all mixed up. The CIWS mount that is part of the SeaRAM does have an integrated radar, but that is indeed not required for the missiles to seek targets. I was just flat wrong on the harpoons and the hellfire though. I think part of what threw me is an article I was reading recently about the addition of a laser seeker to the hellfire. For some reason my brain turned that into, “must be optically guided right now, and they are adding laser tracking to the optical system.”
Thanks for setting me straight!
-
A 5 mile range of the missile is really short. Might need a longer range missile to be more useful.
1 downside of the system. If a booster can be attached to make some kind of Naval Hellfire 2 that reaches out to the horizon, that would be far more useful.
As it is, other than for close range anti-swarm use it doesn't seem very useful over the Mk110 57mm.
-
1 downside of the system. If a booster can be attached to make some kind of Naval Hellfire 2 that reaches out to the horizon, that would be far more useful.
As it is, other than for close range anti-swarm use it doesn't seem very useful over the Mk110 57mm.
That was my impression as well. I think though it does bring more explosive power to impact vs the 57mm.
With Navy reconsidering recommission the last of the Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates, maybe they'll install small VLS launcher vs sticking with a 3rd 25mm cannon they've been putting on what used to be the Mk13 Missile Launcher.
I'd feel better if they did that or at least but a 57mm cannon on her.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/US_Navy_100410-N-3242C-026_The_Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate_USS_Ingraham_%28FFG_61%29_returns_to_Everett,_Wash.jpg)
USS Ingraham returning to Everett. As you can see, that she has that 25mm mounted in the A Position.
The US service is supposedly going recommission some of these ships for anti-drug ships, and bolster the number of the fleet. There dirt cheap in comparison to recommissioning some old Ticonderoga-Class cruisers or even the old USS Kitty Hawk.
-
1 downside of the system. If a booster can be attached to make some kind of Naval Hellfire 2 that reaches out to the horizon, that would be far more useful.
As it is, other than for close range anti-swarm use it doesn't seem very useful over the Mk110 57mm.
I looked into that a bit. Apparently it isn’t expected to compete with the 57mm gun, but with the 30mm guns that get added with the surface warfare package. The range is similar, and with the version of the hellfire they are qualifying they should be able to put a large number of missiles in the air to increase the raw number of targets that can be engaged at once. Rumor has it there was some concern over whether the single 57mm cannon and the two additional 30mm cannons could engage enough targets quickly enough in case of a swarm attack. The Hellfire lets you put a whole lot of missiles up in the air going different directions very quickly compared to what the guns alone could manage.
Also, it appears that there was originally a plan for the surface warfare package to support a non-specified non-line-of-sight Missile that never got developed. So, the Hellfire VLS sort of got thrown into the same space. The Navy still wants a Missile with longer range, but for now the Hellfire already exists and looks like it will do at least as good of a job as the 30mm cannons are doing on swarm attacks.
-
Harpoon does not require radar guidance.. but it does require a long range radar on the firing ship to detect and target enemies at the kind of ranges harpoon is capable of.
No radar needed at all, just a reported position of the contact, which can be provided by another platform such as a maritime patrol aircraft. Harpoon set the standard for ASCMs, unfortunately pretty well all of the competitors have caught up or surpassed Harpoon, which is unsurprising given the USN's current doctrine on surface warfare.
That was my impression as well. I think though it does bring more explosive power to impact vs the 57mm.
With Navy reconsidering recommission the last of the Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates, maybe they'll install small VLS launcher vs sticking with a 3rd 25mm cannon they've been putting on what used to be the Mk13 Missile Launcher.
I'd feel better if they did that or at least but a 57mm cannon on her.
The US service is supposedly going recommission some of these ships for anti-drug ships, and bolster the number of the fleet. There dirt cheap in comparison to recommissioning some old Ticonderoga-Class cruisers or even the old USS Kitty Hawk.
I've spent ten years of my life on them, they are great ships, but they are old and well used. In order to gain any kind of return on investment, you need the ships at full capability for at least a decade. As the RAN found, a massive upgrade program is expensive and rarely lives up to expectations. To be honest, I think a corvette sized vessel would likely be cheaper and a wiser investment than recommissioning an out of date and technologically surpassed platform that was never designed for that role.
-
the Small Surface combatant program (aka the LCS-frigate) didn't do any major changes to the hull, it basically just will upgun them with anti-ship missiles, give them a long range radar to aim said missiles, and gave it the ASW "module" package as a standard fitting. the refit would also remove most of the systems that allow the mission modules to be swapped out, as well as the built in systems designed to operate with the mine clearance module package.
only a few of the current LCS fleet will be retained in the original intended role, with the modular mission packages intact. the Harpoon launchers are going to be be a standard for both the LCS and SSC models, but the SSC models are supposed to have a pair of quad tube launchers, instead of the dual tube launchers seen in the pic above.
the refit of current ships will be the "block 0" version, while debate over possible additional changes is underway for a "block 1" model, which currently is the same size but is intended to include some additional anti-aircraft/point defense (SeaRAM is the current plan) and possibly a small VLS emplacement instead of the Harpoon missiles.
though that "block 1" is possibly not going to happen, since the Secretary of Defense has instructed the navy to look into reducing the order size for both versions of the LCS and SSC.
personally i would leave the trimaran Independence class as the Littorial combat ship model and do the SSC/frigate refit to the Freedom class.. the traditional hullform ought to make the freedom class a bit easier to use in the deep ocean, and ought to leave more room for fitting in additional systems (which lockheed has already done the design work on, as part of their efforts to sell ships overseas)
and this way the two classes aren't competing with each other and tangling up each other's logistics.
Huh, well Lockheed has plans for 3 sizes for the SSC according to this image. Current Freedom-Class is in the middle, with designs for larger and smaller versions as options.
(http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/lockheed/us/news/features/2014/140404-mst-lcs-a-flexible-future-surface-combatant/_jcr_content/center_content/image.img.jpg/1396750337235.jpg)
And the link to the LM article http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2014/140404-mst-lcs-a-flexible-future-surface-combatant.html
-
those are its "for export" versions.. the SSC version they offered the navy only had a 7 meter hull length increase
-
No radar needed at all, just a reported position of the contact, which can be provided by another platform such as a maritime patrol aircraft. Harpoon set the standard for ASCMs, unfortunately pretty well all of the competitors have caught up or surpassed Harpoon, which is unsurprising given the USN's current doctrine on surface warfare.
I've spent ten years of my life on them, they are great ships, but they are old and well used. In order to gain any kind of return on investment, you need the ships at full capability for at least a decade. As the RAN found, a massive upgrade program is expensive and rarely lives up to expectations. To be honest, I think a corvette sized vessel would likely be cheaper and a wiser investment than recommissioning an out of date and technologically surpassed platform that was never designed for that role.
I served on a Perry as well, though not as long as you.
According to reports (https://news.usni.org/2017/09/20/secnav-spencer-oliver-hazard-perry-frigates-low-cost-drug-interdiction-platforms), to recommission a Perry vs new ship is going cost less than 100 million to recommission them vs project the could take years to develop. For the cost of $35,000 for 2 Perry ships to be recommissioned, It's a little hard to argue.
I agree it would be better to build some new designs, but it seems that the bureaucracy just makes it too difficult to bring new designs out or even important new ones from foreign powers. The US built the Sa'ar V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa'ar_5-class_corvette) class Missile Corvettes for Israel at Northrop Grumman by Ingalls Shipbuilding. However, the service is playing numbers game to appease the need for numbers. They need these ships now. The Perry-Class are there in mothballs waiting to be reactivated. At least they'd be useful for the anti-drug mission.
-
No radar needed at all, just a reported position of the contact, which can be provided by another platform such as a maritime patrol aircraft.
For a graphic description, the high-stealth mode for land-based Harpoons is to place spotter teams on the coast. Once the spotter confirms a target the launchers throw their missiles at a preprogrammed navigation point slightly offshore, from where the missile itself will search the target on its own.
-
I looked into that a bit. Apparently it isn’t expected to compete with the 57mm gun, but with the 30mm guns that get added with the surface warfare package. The range is similar, and with the version of the hellfire they are qualifying they should be able to put a large number of missiles in the air to increase the raw number of targets that can be engaged at once. Rumor has it there was some concern over whether the single 57mm cannon and the two additional 30mm cannons could engage enough targets quickly enough in case of a swarm attack. The Hellfire lets you put a whole lot of missiles up in the air going different directions very quickly compared to what the guns alone could manage.
I too think that was the intent. Hmm, I wonder if this is partly reaction to that controversial naval exercise where the Opfor commander threw a lot of small boats at the Navy, and blew them all up.
The US built the Sa'ar V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa'ar_5-class_corvette) class Missile Corvettes for Israel at Northrop Grumman by Ingalls Shipbuilding. However, the service is playing numbers game to appease the need for numbers. They need these ships now. The Perry-Class are there in mothballs waiting to be reactivated. At least they'd be useful for the anti-drug mission.
It'd take at least 2 years from the word "Go" to put anything new-build into the water I think, and when talking about 30-year-life assets its not a decision to be taken lightly - at least those Perrycans can be put back into mothballs when deemed not necessary, with little overall fiscal damage from the back-and-forth.
For a graphic description, the high-stealth mode for land-based Harpoons is to place spotter teams on the coast. Once the spotter confirms a target the launchers throw their missiles at a preprogrammed navigation point slightly offshore, from where the missile itself will search the target on its own.
Downside of Harpoon is its inability to discriminate targets, and now that semi-stealth characteristics are de rigeur for warships, its more likely that a missile exchange in some crowded sea-lanes (like in the South China Sea...) is going to take down a few fishing boats than its actual target...
-
Re Hellfire - don't forget that the missile shell has also been used to create the Brimstone missile etc
Re USN need for more hulls - this sort of reactivation is the reason ships go into mothballs rather than being sunk/scrapped
I don't know what the future holds in terms of need for things to fulfil different missions which I guess is mainly a balance between something any hull can do and things which need high capability; the problem is that when you go to an all-high capability hull navy (ie all Arleigh Burke or Tico) you don't want to "waste" them on anti-drug missions or anti-piracy patrols. On the other hand, how do you sell to the politicians "we just want some cheap hulls that will be somewhere between useless and target practice in the event of a big shooting war"? For the USN maybe that means passing over more of the mission and funding to the Coast Guard?
-
I served on a Perry as well, though not as long as you.
According to reports (https://news.usni.org/2017/09/20/secnav-spencer-oliver-hazard-perry-frigates-low-cost-drug-interdiction-platforms), to recommission a Perry vs new ship is going cost less than 100 million to recommission them vs project the could take years to develop. For the cost of $35,000 for 2 Perry ships to be recommissioned, It's a little hard to argue.
I agree it would be better to build some new designs, but it seems that the bureaucracy just makes it too difficult to bring new designs out or even important new ones from foreign powers. The US built the Sa'ar V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa'ar_5-class_corvette) class Missile Corvettes for Israel at Northrop Grumman by Ingalls Shipbuilding. However, the service is playing numbers game to appease the need for numbers. They need these ships now. The Perry-Class are there in mothballs waiting to be reactivated. At least they'd be useful for the anti-drug mission.
Fair enough. :-) Your mothballing procedures are clearly pretty effective. Usually a ship would be severely degraded after just a couple of years. Mind you, when it comes to construction of ships, the US is far better and faster than Australia. It takes nearly a decade here from signing off on the contract to actually having a usable first of class. :-P
-
Fair enough. :-) Your mothballing procedures are clearly pretty effective. Usually a ship would be severely degraded after just a couple of years. Mind you, when it comes to construction of ships, the US is far better and faster than Australia. It takes nearly a decade here from signing off on the contract to actually having a usable first of class. :-P
I will not claim any knowledge of this beyond Wikipedia but the opening to the article on the Oliver Hazard Perry class points out some were only decommissioned within the last couple of years and some had short careers and weren't just mothballed but put on hold for foreign sale - Simpson, Elrod, Rodney M Davis, Kauffman, Gary and Taylor at least - on the other hand, those ships were all commissioned in the 1980s but as they only decommissioned a couple of years ago hopefully the knowledge of how to run the ships won't have been lost from the USN's corporate memory
-
Hellfire originally was laser homing, and that might actually work better for LOS applications like this naval usage. The radar option was for well helos with mast-mounted systems (Longbow Apache specifically).
Although in a direct fire role, it would seem to make more sense to have something like a rail launcher given the short engagement ranges of a surface-to-surface Hellfire
-
i suspect they went VLS for the hellfires so that other ships with VLS systems could use them too. not a lot of rail launchers on our ships anymore, but VLS systems are pretty much standard now.
-
Uh, no, the Hellfire VLS is in no way compatible with any other VLS systems in the USN.
They VLS-packed it because
a) that allows 360-degree interception from a single position
b) they have to fill the rather useless space that the NLOS-PAM missile VLS left after it was cut...
-
Uh, no, the Hellfire VLS is in no way compatible with any other VLS systems in the USN.
They VLS-packed it because
a) that allows 360-degree interception from a single position
b) they have to fill the rather useless space that the NLOS-PAM missile VLS left after it was cut...
So that VLS that was pictured, was a unique exclusive Hellfire VLS launcher?
-
It's called the Surface-to-Surface Mission Module, and yes it's exclusive to Hellfire.
Technologically, it's basically cobbled together from a standard M299 Hellfire rail launcher mounted vertically and a Hazard Control Module and power supply from the Mk41 VLS. The missiles used are standard Hellfire AGM-114L-8A (as used by the Army), although there are nebulous plans to switch that to AGM-114K (as used by the Navy).
Edit: Offhand, what it might be compatible with: Lockheed-Martin has a quad laser-guided 70mm rocket launch assembly for mounting on a single M299 rail (RMC - rail-mounted canister), proposed for their DAGR quad M299 assembly (intended for vehicles). That one might work, although it'd be ... well, useless for a ship.
-
Given the role, I think something like a RAM/ASROC box setup (no through-hull ammunition feed) might be better
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/05/39/90/053990b0bd4070280d2a2bbdce265624.jpg)
At those engagement ranges, reaction speed is going to matter. Streak SRM-4s? :D
The 360 degree coverage seems less crucial, but the firing arc should be considered in the context of other deck/CIWS/manually operated guns since they'll all be operating in the same range bands
-
So, SeaRAM for more or less autonomous short range anti-air work, and a similar setup for more or less autonomous anti-surface work?
-
Congrats diggers on the commissioning of HMAS Hobart
No nice pics at her commish though, so here's one of her on acceptance trials. Sorry mates but she's got a really ugly mast IMHO :D
(https://s25.postimg.org/f5flakq67/main.jpg)
-
Uh, no, the Hellfire VLS is in no way compatible with any other VLS systems in the USN.
They VLS-packed it because
a) that allows 360-degree interception from a single position
b) they have to fill the rather useless space that the NLOS-PAM missile VLS left after it was cut...
I would guess you can also waterproof the VLS box so you don't have to waterproof the missiles etc? They will be sealed in the can from the environment
-
It's called the Surface-to-Surface Mission Module, and yes it's exclusive to Hellfire.
Technologically, it's basically cobbled together from a standard M299 Hellfire rail launcher mounted vertically and a Hazard Control Module and power supply from the Mk41 VLS. The missiles used are standard Hellfire AGM-114L-8A (as used by the Army), although there are nebulous plans to switch that to AGM-114K (as used by the Navy).
Edit: Offhand, what it might be compatible with: Lockheed-Martin has a quad laser-guided 70mm rocket launch assembly for mounting on a single M299 rail (RMC - rail-mounted canister), proposed for their DAGR quad M299 assembly (intended for vehicles). That one might work, although it'd be ... well, useless for a ship.
Well, it's small enough to fit in that tiny module behind the forward turret. Range of 2 - 3 miles doesn't impress much unless it's one-shot-one-kill sort thing. Some thing like that would only pepper a similar size ship. It won't be able take on anything bigger unless it could sneak in and get close. It's more a anti-small ship weapon but it's waste unless cost of the missiles were less.
-
Congrats diggers on the commissioning of HMAS Hobart
No nice pics at her commish though, so here's one of her on acceptance trials. Sorry mates but she's got a really ugly mast IMHO :D
(https://s25.postimg.org/f5flakq67/main.jpg)
A friend of mine helped design her GPS. She's since moved here to the states and married a member of this forum. :)
-
Some thing like that would only pepper a similar size ship. It won't be able take on anything bigger unless it could sneak in and get close. It's more a anti-small ship weapon but it's waste unless cost of the missiles were less.
The USN has had a bit of an "obsession" with ships being swarmed by small boats in littoral waters since at least the USS Cole attack - although it's in no way alone in that. The idea is to have a one-stop weapon to perform 360-degree defence against such attacks with sufficient firepower to destroy a decent number of RHIBs concurrently well outside just HMG range while being able to perform target discrimination due to such boats possibly hiding within a larger crowd of civilian boats. Hellfire taps all of those points.
RAM in HAS mode is a possible solution for that too provided proper full launchers covering 360 degrees are available on a ship (this is used e.g. by the German Navy as part of the standard self-defense suite for frigates), although that solution is rather costly - the RAM Block 1A HAS missiles did cost around five times as much as Hellfire AGM-114L did in procurement, with that extra cost buying you likely twice the intercept range, a 40-50% bigger warhead on target, the ability to reload at sea (which SSMS doesn't support) and of course the ability to perform other defensive missions (anti-air, anti-missile) with the same setup. It however falls short on the target discrimination point.
-
I wasn't sure if RAM was reloadable at sea. I know they removed the VLS gantry that they used to reload Mk41 launchers for the old CG-47s and early DDG-51s while at sea.
If RAM isn't that good at telling who from who apart, i rather see them stick something else, they could end up hitting someone.
I remember being told that CIWS aka SeaWiz responded when the USS Missouri fired it's chaff for some reason and the gatlin gun carved up the forecastle. Thank to gaud it was actual battleship, with armor vs a typical modern ship. The executive officer was nearly killed by that misfire, since the SeaWiz thought the chaff was inbound missile.
I was told later, when the frigate (it was Oliver Hazard Perry) returned to it's homeport in Long Beach, the Missouri's gunnery crews actually trained one of the 16inch turrets on the ship as it entered port.
-
I wasn't sure if RAM was reloadable at sea.
You simply open the backplane and shove in new missile canisters one-by-one. There's a gantry involved, but you set that up manually from a nearby locker - and you can also load the missiles with two to four men by hand if necessary.
If RAM isn't that good at telling who from who apart, i rather see them stick something else, they could end up hitting someone.
RAM will destroy any target that its seeker recognizes as a pattern of a potential target. Once that pattern disappears - i.e. if a previous missile in the same salvo destroys it - the missile switches to the next best pattern matching its preset (part of the currently in development Block 2B upgrade is to improve on that using a missile-to-missile link so the salvo swarm can spread out to combat multiple targets at once). What HAS - "helicopters, aircraft, ships" - adds over a standard anti-missile RAM is mostly a more extensive library of target patterns to search for.
This also means that within the target vector a RAM launcher is aimed at there's for example seven boats, two helicopters, an overflying aircraft and an attacking anti-ship missile within engagement range, then a salvo of RAM missiles set for HAS mode will attempt to sequentially attack all of these by distance from the launcher. And the salvo a single RAM launcher holds and could in theory fire off as a missile stream in 10 seconds is enough to kill off all of that easily (you can alternatively switch mode to AIR, which will only attack "hot" IR sources, or to HRF, which would attack the missile only).
Unlike Phalanx RAM doesn't have an automatic mode btw. It's always man-in-the-loop.
-
(https://s1.postimg.org/2gef9lqg5b/RIM-116_Loading.jpg)
-
Congrats diggers on the commissioning of HMAS Hobart
No nice pics at her commish though, so here's one of her on acceptance trials. Sorry mates but she's got a really ugly mast IMHO :D
(https://s25.postimg.org/f5flakq67/main.jpg)
To be honest, she's ugly as sin, but that won't matter if she's an effective combatant. :-)
Take the ANZAC Class, a very pretty ship, but pretty well totally ineffective for nearly a decade, and even now not overly effective. If the Hobart Class outperforms that, I'll be happy.
-
I was peripherally involved in some work on the Anzacs ... and I have to agree. Very pretty ships, of the 'massively overweight patrol boat' class.
-
Took the family to Sydney last weekend to visit my folks and Taronga Zoo. On the ferry ride across Sydney Harbour from Circular Quay to Taronga Zoo I managed to get this photo. This was taken on Sunday the day after HMAS Hobart was commissioned, so Hobart is on the left, in the centre of the photo (just to the right of the crane) is the stern of HMAS Success, to the right of Success is an ANZAC Class and to the far right is HMAS Choules.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/QPvXylCO9VmM8phoXyzZ7hp8D0zc_IIrFvUJk1fjnxMv9qXSGa4CSpL8pq9sEVm9yzd-hF9w1aEisx2zjKxkP80j23huH0nhyVPo-KzLGrsLc9K_xeXQdvbIhk8ROTsZZxoFIg32NYwxZ5BqlLrzeADUUQgP9RyyVacEV8s-nN_FAQ6ITurvpMncL3ggKu5t6YFk5_QZ-7IgRnApaVAHQnThqZTnE1xEzqr3Gki_TF5S_EBrR8GcPYB_06Ssltx5-nC_HdUlkjSkh0bimFjFUxiVNbEKSCp2lxCezr7FHPXJt0pcMyaYmd6k9qps-Pi1jh_ip7JwEGuIddZMTfSNVXILt00PP1rwZGPAw_mgZeoI9y-ElK3ozPgoCe-XhtcwG_OWzUsiJSJmYnL9_X_k5pK5VYHuD23wzATi5yrHE30O0BnmqK5dVDI_qFSKorMGhae00DfZf9wImhaOtHNEvLoYDWMrE4Zg548waQXDutQwNnWlKruESqoc6uFpX-eZ-VES9a9W9X51bsLwuP7zQ_I14fJYu_MbW4QXgG4JPCcUXJfIlD28_JFWFWKR_jL0KaDGHWR5GpOtc-a2H-WZzdu0ZC6JptGDl4hx-Z_4Pj2qB-_BsY9FqpUtFJCYksRzmhYvaAFpgHlSD_fHj6WkrZl9M8m-kRD34w=w1051-h677-no-tmp.jpg)
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/navy-warships-will-have-technology-to-defend-against-missiles/9010228 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/navy-warships-will-have-technology-to-defend-against-missiles/9010228)
So to summarise, the RAN Air Warfare Destroyers (which are Frigates when in service with the Spanish) which have replaced the old Perth-class (aka Charles F. Adams-class) DDGs are distinguished from the Frigates by their focus on air warfare, hence need for the AEGIS. However, are new Future Frigates to replace the existing ANZAC-class Frigates (which started their lives as overweight Patrol Boats that replaced our old Destroyer Escorts) will also be equipped with AEGIS (although I assume with CEAFAR Active Phased Array Radar and not the AN/SPY-1 Radar), so they will be an Air Warfare Frigate but with a focus on ASW . . . confused yet? #P
-
SBS just had the Mythbusters episode with the Syrian Torpedo. Sounds like they need some of those ...
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/navy-warships-will-have-technology-to-defend-against-missiles/9010228 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/navy-warships-will-have-technology-to-defend-against-missiles/9010228)
So to summarise, the RAN Air Warfare Destroyers (which are Frigates when in service with the Spanish) which have replaced the old Perth-class (aka Charles F. Adams-class) DDGs are distinguished from the Frigates by their focus on air warfare, hence need for the AEGIS. However, are new Future Frigates to replace the existing ANZAC-class Frigates (which started their lives as overweight Patrol Boats that replaced our old Destroyer Escorts) will also be equipped with AEGIS (although I assume with CEAFAR Active Phased Array Radar and not the AN/SPY-1 Radar), so they will be an Air Warfare Frigate but with a focus on ASW . . . confused yet? #P
The logic is there, with the current threat. However....they went through that trouble to make the "DDG" only to say their going replace their escort fleet with additional air-defense ships. If they wanted get serious, they'd cough up the money build actual Destroyers or better cruisers with VLS launchers with 100 cell of missiles vs possibly smaller ship with arguably same amount of missiles it's current DDG has. Which has 32 cells of missiles.
What are they going use to escort their "Destroyers" and Air Defense Frigates? With more frigates? ???
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/navy-warships-will-have-technology-to-defend-against-missiles/9010228 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/navy-warships-will-have-technology-to-defend-against-missiles/9010228)
So to summarise, the RAN Air Warfare Destroyers (which are Frigates when in service with the Spanish) which have replaced the old Perth-class (aka Charles F. Adams-class) DDGs are distinguished from the Frigates by their focus on air warfare, hence need for the AEGIS. However, are new Future Frigates to replace the existing ANZAC-class Frigates (which started their lives as overweight Patrol Boats that replaced our old Destroyer Escorts) will also be equipped with AEGIS (although I assume with CEAFAR Active Phased Array Radar and not the AN/SPY-1 Radar), so they will be an Air Warfare Frigate but with a focus on ASW . . . confused yet? #P
Kind of yes, but its a valid conclusion with the threat assessment. The RAN may not be big enough to support an AAW-ASW mix like the Royal Navy does. IF there is the budgetary support, therefore, the only solution is to go the USN way, and build expensive Burke-type ships capable of area air defence and ASW both, leaving other duties to highly-automated patrol boats aka OPVs.
I was peripherally involved in some work on the Anzacs ... and I have to agree. Very pretty ships, of the 'massively overweight patrol boat' class.
What's wrong with the ANZAC-class? Other than the ballyhoo with the helicopters (a case of "penny-wise pound-foolish" if ever I saw one), once upgraded with ESSM, Harpoon and CEAFAR they seem decent general-purpose frigates.
-
The logic is there, with the current threat. However....they went through that trouble to make the "DDG" only to say their going replace their escort fleet with additional air-defense ships. If they wanted get serious, they'd cough up the money build actual Destroyers or better cruisers with VLS launchers with 100 cell of missiles vs possibly smaller ship with arguably same amount of missiles it's current DDG has. Which has 32 cells of missiles.
What are they going use to escort their "Destroyers" and Air Defense Frigates? With more frigates? ???
So by this, there are two kinds of navy. The kind with a full lineup of Ticos and Burkes, and the kind that aren't taking their job seriously. Did I get that right?
What should navies that don't actually need that kind of firepower use?
-
So by this, there are two kinds of navy. The kind with a full lineup of Ticos and Burkes, and the kind that aren't taking their job seriously. Did I get that right?
What should navies that don't actually need that kind of firepower use?
I'd say there's the USN which puts vast resources in big ships (CVN, USMC embarked forces) which are high value targets where a single loss would be a catastrophe and... the rest of the world.
The other advanced first world navies need a balance of air defence but it isn't worth being able to defend against a true Macross missile massacre because you'll either be with the USN or fighting the USN but you want to move trade or, in the event of war, convoys across oceans which may be hiding submarines. You also need hulls to do all sorts of odd jobs.
Finally, to get a G on your DD or FF you just need more than self defence SAM capabilities, it doesn't mean you need to be world beating.
-
Kind of yes, but its a valid conclusion with the threat assessment. The RAN may not be big enough to support an AAW-ASW mix like the Royal Navy does....
Current fleet comparison
Australian Navy (3 Assault, 2 Destroyer, 10 Frigate, 20 patrol/minehunter)
Royal Navy (2 Aircraft carrier, 3 Assault, 6 Destroyer, 13 Frigate, 20 patrol and 7 minehunters)
Ignoring the aircraft carriers (yes I know :D) on paper the numbers don't look very different between the two navies
Capability would be a different thing though...
-
Current fleet comparison
Australian Navy (3 Assault, 2 Destroyer, 10 Frigate, 20 patrol/minehunter)
Royal Navy (2 Aircraft carrier, 3 Assault, 6 Destroyer, 13 Frigate, 20 patrol and 7 minehunters)
Ignoring the aircraft carriers (yes I know :D) on paper the numbers don't look very different between the two navies
Capability would be a different thing though...
By "big enough" I really meant in terms of manpower, sorry.
the RAN has 11 active frigates, 3 AA and 8 ASW, and 6 non-nuclear attack submarines. the RN has 4 amphib ships counting HMS Ocean, a few more Ro-Ro ships, 7 nuclear attack submarines and 4 nuclear ballistic submarines.
The RAN has about 60%-70% the defence budget* (in USD terms) and 50% the manpower of the RN. But it has less global commitments and doesn't have to bear the significant costs of a nuclear deterrent, or a nuclear attack sub fleet. What do you do when you have more money/capita, less manpower, less responsibilities and less need to show presence**?
Buy the best you can. Maybe have less ships, depending on operational requirements, so you can spend more on individual ships and upgrade their capabilities. Go the USN way - the USN certainly has the budget to flood the world with hundreds of Soviet-type missile corvettes whose job is to make suicide runs and flush their missiles at the enemy, but the budget it commands and the premium it places on its crews' lives precludes that option - something the LCS people should have realised.
*actually the RAN has a more effective budget than that: both countries have defence budgets of ~GBP 35bn and ~AUD 35bn each. Salaries and domestic costs are paid in AUD and GBP respectively, so while each procurement GBP buys 1.7 times more foreign hardware than the AUD, the RAN might have more dollars to spend on procurement.
**the RN has to have a certain number of escorts available at different parts of the world. The RAN, AFAIK, has less such need.
-
there is also a major difference in goals. Australia's military is primarily a defensive force. it exists to protect Australia from potential enemies. it is not involved in a lot of global intervention or stare downs with major world powers the way the US military has been in the last century.
if Australia faces a major conflict, they can also call on the other British Commonwealths for support if they need more than they have. not to mention the US as an ally.
-
(https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/n70000/n74310.jpg)
Just wanted to add a photo to the photo thread.
-
change of pace
-
Tumbledown in perspective ...
(https://i.imgur.com/ezslB96.jpg)
Jemappes, Amiral-Tréhouart, and Valmy
-
Freeboard - not just a good idea.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/USS_Monadnock_BM-3_crossing_the_Pacific.jpg)
-
Just wanted to add a photo to the photo thread.
oh all right ::)
Small but deadly - INS Herev, a Sa'ar 4.5-class missile boat. I don't know why she's lacking the Phalanx CIWS normally mounted on the 'A' gun position.
(https://s1.postimg.org/8pmnabj6in/3741668308.jpg)
-
The logic is there, with the current threat. However....they went through that trouble to make the "DDG" only to say their going replace their escort fleet with additional air-defense ships. If they wanted get serious, they'd cough up the money build actual Destroyers or better cruisers with VLS launchers with 100 cell of missiles vs possibly smaller ship with arguably same amount of missiles it's current DDG has. Which has 32 cells of missiles.
What are they going use to escort their "Destroyers" and Air Defense Frigates? With more frigates? ???
May I present the three contenders for our future Offshore Patrol Vessel to replace the Armidale-class patrol boats:
Luerssen OPV80
(http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/adm/images/dmImage/SourceImage/OPV801.jpg)
Fassmer OPV 80
(http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/adm/images/dmImage/SourceImage/opv80_C59D55D0-B6B4-11E6-B6CC4AF2C3D73C2A.jpg)
Damen OPV 2600
(http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/adm/images/dmImage/SourceImage/damen_9F8916C0-B6BB-11E6-B6CC4AF2C3D73C2A.jpg)
-
I vote for the Damen. Why you ask? Solely because I think we need to see more vertical, hatchet-like prows like that design has!
-
Freeboard - not just a good idea.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/USS_Monadnock_BM-3_crossing_the_Pacific.jpg)
Jeeze, it looks like she's been bloody torpedoed, but nope, she's just got no freeboard. One hole in the waterline from a shell and she'd be in a LOT of trouble.
-
Tumbledown in perspective ...
(https://i.imgur.com/ezslB96.jpg)
Jemappes, Amiral-Tréhouart, and Valmy
Very nice find, never seen this picture before, the Marine Nationale produced some....unique looking ships in the late 1800's early 1900's for sure.
-
I vote for the Damen. Why you ask? Solely because I think we need to see more vertical, hatchet-like prows like that design has!
She does look nice, but of course performance is always more important than looks . . .
From the Austrailan Defence Magazine article (http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/deep-dive-into-sea-1180-s-opv):
The Damen offering for Sea 1180 is likely to be based on the Arialah class as seen in service with the UAE. At only 67m the vessels are kitted out like a much larger ship. This includes the Raytheon Mark 49 Mod 2 RAM missile launcher, Thales STIR fire control and Thales Smart-S Mark 2 search radar, two OTO Melara MARLIN 30mm automatic guns and the Rheinmetall MASS Multi Ammunition Softkill System decoy system, all managed by the TACTICOS combat management system.
It incorporates Damen’s Axe Bow Concept, for which it holds an exclusive license on the patent. Initially developed to improve vessel operating profile and crew safety and comfort, the Sea Axe concept is also proving its worth when it comes to sustainability. The vessels exhibit superior motion behaviour and significantly lower resistance through the water. This leads to a cut in fuel usage of 20 per cent and, consequently, lower emissions.
I wonder how they managed to patent an idea that has already been previously invented?
-
I'm guessing the hull shape underwater is special.
-
Actually there might be more to that axe-bow.
http://www.damen.com/en/innovation/some-key-projects/sea-axe-design
Check out the shape and note how far down the bow's leading edge goes. It looks like it actually goes well below the keel itself, making that the lowest point in the water by quite a bit. Wonder what that does to the flow around it and just behind it.
-
I would think it would create a dead-zone at high speed, sort of a 'bubble' if you will where water doesn't have a chance to close in after being sliced apart first- could create better hydrodynamics. Probably also shows up on a submarine's passive sonar when it's a hundred miles away, but whatever.
Intriguing though, for sure.
-
I wonder if it might not be meant for anything that'll be expected to go up against subs. OPVs and similar ships are mostly used for light patrol and Coast Guard-style duties, right? For small navies that do most of their work with small ships like that and don't really expect to do much ASW work, this could be really nice.
-
Found a couple videos of the 'Axe Bow' in motion. Here is a decent one that actually shows it hitting a few small waves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oaOPXfcSV4
It does look like the boat doesn't heave all that much, which is apparently one of the big advantages, but I haven't been able to find any video of that design in some more serious waves. My guess would be that the bow pops out of the water quite a bit when the CG of the boat is on a waves crest, and is utterly buried in the water at the trough. That probably doesn't make a good PR video though, so I haven't seen any footage like that yet!
-
If you look at it, the "axe bow" is just a clipper bow with high sides.
The classic "straight bow" is more efficient in flat seas, but doesn't handle oncoming high waves well - it'll dig down, and your foredeck gets very wet. In extreme cases, you play at being a submarine. The flare on the clipper bow ensures the bow climbs the wave, and pushes water to the side. You can still get a wet deck, but no more submarine, at the cost of pitching heavily.
This seems to be trying for a halfway house. There's definite flare up to half way up.
-
May I present the three contenders for our future Offshore Patrol Vessel to replace the Armidale-class patrol boats:
Meh, "contenders" is a relative term. Fassmer is partnered with Austal, Lürssen and Damen with ASC. Given workload distribution at ASC (they're building the destroyers) even from an industry viewpoint it makes sense to give this contract to Fassmer/Austal.
The conceptual layout is also a bit different. The Lürssen OPVs (procured by e.g. Chile) are intended for blue water operations in the extended EEZ, the Fassmer OPVs (procured by e.g. Brunei) are intended for more of a brown water role in territorial water and EEZ patrol.
The Damen offer is vastly oversized - they're basically an axe-bow redesign of the dutch Holland class, 20m longer and a thousand tons heavier than either of the others, intended to be used as platforms for modularized capability packages.
OPVs and similar ships are mostly used for light patrol and Coast Guard-style duties, right? For small navies that do most of their work with small ships like that and don't really expect to do much ASW work, this could be really nice.
These particular designs are all small-frigate-sized and can be (and for some customers are) equipped with sonar, torpedos and anti-ship missiles and in some cases can be reconfigured for other warfare duties as well such as mine countermeasures.
-
Tripod:
(https://i.imgur.com/Mz1ORZc.jpg)
or lattice:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/USS_Michigan_BB_27_collapsed_cage_foremast.jpg)
You decide!
-
The Damen offer is vastly oversized - they're basically an axe-bow redesign of the dutch Holland class, 20m longer and a thousand tons heavier than either of the others, intended to be used as platforms for modularized capability packages.
These particular designs are all small-frigate-sized and can be (and for some customers are) equipped with sonar, torpedos and anti-ship missiles and in some cases can be reconfigured for other warfare duties as well such as mine countermeasures.
That might actually swing the project Damen's way because the plan is that the OPV is for it to have modular capability and will also probably replace our mine sweepers. Additionally, due to the vast size of our EEZ and SAR responsibilty areas a slightly bigger platform would probably be viewed favourably by the squids.
(https://www.amsa.gov.au/search-and-rescue/engaging-with-the-sar-community/regional-engagement/Images/AusSARRegion.jpg)
If the axe-bow can save 20% in fuel and handle the rough seas then the procurement and integrated logistics support guys will love it along with the fact that Damen has already delivered a number of support boats to the RAN already (less procurement/commercial risk than dealing with other companies that they have not dealt with before). The decision-makers will love it because it is a sexy looking boat, that will be great for photo opportunities and they can spruik that it will be built here.
-
That is a freaking huge EEZ...why do I suspect that every OPV builder/designer on the planet keeps the RAN in their rolodex...
-
Sorry, I should have labelled that diagram, that is the Australian SAR region. The Australian SAR region covers an area of nearly 53 million square kilometres, which is one tenth of the world’s surface.
This is the Australian EEZ:
(http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp06-1.gif)
-
And lest we forget ... the Soviet battlecruiser Yuri Andropov (okay, RFN Pyotr Velikiy) having a good day.
https://youtu.be/fmG5rxGn6Bg
Always nice to see under the skin of a Kirov class. And the trajectory of the Granit was cool.
Also interesting, the VL AA missile at around 4:17 - using reaction rockets at the nose to tip it over quickly. I don't recall seeing that trick before - do US VL missiles do the same?
-
Jeeze, it looks like she's been bloody torpedoed, but nope, she's just got no freeboard. One hole in the waterline from a shell and she'd be in a LOT of trouble.
HMS Captain wasn't so lucky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Captain_(1869)
-
French Battleship, Charles Martel, warning...it's a colorized picture.
(https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/french-bb-charlemagne.jpg?w=479)
-
Deterrence cruises - what the world thinks we're up to.
What we're really up to:
(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cool-vintage-parents-130-59d48fa827820__700.jpg)
-
And lest we forget ... the Soviet battlecruiser Yuri Andropov (okay, RFN Pyotr Velikiy) having a good day.
https://youtu.be/fmG5rxGn6Bg
Always nice to see under the skin of a Kirov class. And the trajectory of the Granit was cool.
Actuall
Also interesting, the VL AA missile at around 4:17 - using reaction rockets at the nose to tip it over quickly. I don't recall seeing that trick before - do US VL missiles do the same?
That IS interesting- no, I don't think I've seen that trick before from a Western VLS system- which doesn't mean they don't/can't, just that it's new to me.
-
Speaking of Granits... let's see your country's carrier do this. 8)
-
I thought the Chinese got rid of their launchers on their ship because of it taking up room in the hangar since the primary function was to launch fighters.
Still pretty cool you have ship killers onboard your ship. It's like how the Lexington-Class Aircraft Carriers were originally armed with twin barrel eight inch guns.
-
The Kuznetsov's primary rule isn't to launch fighters, it's to protect a surface group from enemy carriers. The fighters are to protect the ships from airstrikes, and the Granits(in conjunction with the rest of the surface group) are to kill the carrier so the airstrikes stop.
In hindsight this doesn't seem like it would actually work in a shooting war, but the fact remains that Admiral Kuznetsov was NOT built to do the same or even remotely similar job as a Nimitz or de Gaullestone. To judge it wanting by comparing it to those vessels is absolute folly.
Instead, judge it wanting by all the ways it truly does suck.
-
You mean like by creating more smoke from its boilers than from the missile launches? ;D
Anyway, speaking of smoke, USS Tennessee creates plenty here in an exercise during the inter-war era.
(https://s24.postimg.org/jkk7nqws5/smoke.jpg)
-
USS Iwo Jima, Wasp Class LHD...cruising though the fog in the Atlantic.
Pretty cool picture, looks like she a shark with it's fin above the water with all that fog.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/US_Navy_060115-N-6282K-001_The_amphibious_assault_ship_USS_Iwo_Jima_%28LHD_7%29_shown_operating_in_dense_fog_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean.jpg/1280px-US_Navy_060115-N-6282K-001_The_amphibious_assault_ship_USS_Iwo_Jima_%28LHD_7%29_shown_operating_in_dense_fog_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean.jpg)
Iwo Jima and the USS New York are cruising down to Mississippi and Lousiana coast due to where Hurricane Nate goin...
-
Always nice to see under the skin of a Kirov class. And the trajectory of the Granit was cool.
I wonder what's behind that shower curtain on the bridge. CIC?
-
KGB ...
-
Didn't they remove the SS19 missile launchers form the carriers so they could hold more fighters??
Still a awesome shot!
-
Also interesting, the VL AA missile at around 4:17 - using reaction rockets at the nose to tip it over quickly. I don't recall seeing that trick before - do US VL missiles do the same?
Sort of. The ESSM makes a similar turn, but uses thrust vectoring to do it:
https://youtu.be/C_3iq8ECuNM?t=1m8s
Also, the Patriot (at least the PAC3 model) CAN use forward thrusters to make a turn, but I don't think it is an automatic part of every launch. Of course, the Patriot is built with a bunch of single-use rocket thrusters just behind the nose that is uses to maneuver since it doesn't have much in the way of control surfaces, so maybe that isn't exactly the same either.
You can see one fire at about 1:39 in this video:
https://youtu.be/kmb5FPS9TYE?t=1m13s
Then, although it is really another Russian design at heart, the Brahmos does a similar trick:
https://youtu.be/iRyOWawaT_U
-
Sort of. The ESSM makes a similar turn, but uses thrust vectoring to do it:
For VL ESSM they're using a cheaper trick: There's an attachment behind the rocket motor whose only function is to, at a certain moment, after reaching about 20m altitude, tilt a metal pane (as a jet control surface) directly into the path of the rocket motor's exhaust, reflecting it in a certain direction to tilt the missile over. Other than this attachment VL-launched ESSM are identical to non-VL-launched ESSM.
Once it has done its job as above that attachment is immediately jettisoned and usually falls straight back on the launching ship - and yes, they've had these hit and damage stuff, including hole-in-oneing VLS tubes themselves. The JVC jettision is supposedly part of the reason why VL ESSM are not used on carriers due to the possible impact (sic) on flight operations.
--
French Aster missiles for comparison use actual small rocket engines that are mounted mid-missile exactly at the center of gravity so they can shift the missile's entire body with minimal effort. That's why, when you look at an Aster launch, the missile always seems to make a far more "rounded" turn into a certain direction (from the moment its clears the VLS tube!), with the TVC engines shifting the missile so that its main motor propels it as perfectly as possible directly to the target vector.
-
I never said it was a FANCY thrust vectoring system! :)
-
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
Some interesting reading on how stealthy a full carrier group can be...
-
Graf Spee after the battle and before the scuttling.
(https://s1.postimg.org/91kq8b9mfj/00-grafspee-1.jpg)
-
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
Some interesting reading on how stealthy a full carrier group can be...
For a guy who says he isn't going to talk about deception any more, he sure talks about it a lot...
-
When you to do a OPV (aka a Patrol Boat) used by the Indonesian Navy. You do it with style!
The Klewang-Class Stealthy 63 meter trimaran patrol boats.
These are strange ships to look at, look like their not armed but they are.
The ship have their weapons hidden are fully armed with hidden 40-57mm cannons, rapid fire CIWS as well as missiles. I wasn't able find out exactly what it's armed since the navy has kept it's weapons capacities classified. The ship can at as a commando carrier ship, with accommodations for special forces troops.
The KRI Klewang, the lead of the Class of four ships, was lost to fire only weeks being launched in 2013 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=178&v=3xRwc_yGdXM), but was replaced. There actually a youtube video of the fire, which look pretty bad. Thankfully no one was injured. Though makes me think that the construction materials for the ship is pretty lousy.
(https://i32.servimg.com/u/f32/17/22/92/87/54656713.jpg)
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/klewang_2.jpg)
-
The ship have their weapons hidden are fully armed with hidden 40-57mm cannons, rapid fire CIWS as well as missiles. I wasn't able find out exactly what it's armed since the navy has kept it's weapons capacities classified.
Generally assumed to be an AO-18 CIWS (AK-630 clone) in a stealthed cupola and a set of either 4 or 8 C-705 AShM. No 40/57mm guns, the statement regarding these is worded such that it "can" mount such on the superstructure, presumed in place of the AO-18 (as in, it actually doesn't mount them).
Realistically, the trimarans aren't patrol boats though but instead will likely replace their Parchim class corvettes. For the patrol boats - and missile boats - Indonesia is building conventionally-hulled ships with a series of 60m boats to replace German FPB57 and Korean PSMM Mk5 missile boats, and two series of (ultra-cheap) 40m and 43m boats to replace older Australian and domestically built boats.
For offshore patrol they're planning to buy a series of proper OPVs in the 100m size region, although that procurement is fraught with financial problems.
Though makes me think that the construction materials for the ship is pretty lousy.
Standard carbon fibre composites. Burns even better than aluminium.
The New Zealandian designer and Indonesian shipyard have since gotten together with Swedish company Saab to design a successor model that basically marries this Trimaran design to the electronics, weapon systems and fire-****** vinyl ester construction materials of Saab's Visby class corvettes.
-
The New Zealandian designer and Indonesian shipyard have since gotten together with Swedish company Saab to design a successor model that basically marries this Trimaran design to the electronics, weapon systems and fire-****** vinyl ester construction materials of Saab's Visby class corvettes.
Has that been done by now or they still working on it?
-
Has that been done by now or they still working on it?
They advertised it at Indodefence 2014 in Indonesia and DSA 2014 in Malaysia. Since they didn't find buyers they also tried to downscale the concept into a RHIB-sized armed USV, and shortly thereafter the cooperation fell apart.
PT Lundin / North Sea Boats pretty much applied the materials science of that cooperation as they've been building the replacement for KRI Klewang since then.
North Sea Boats is advertising the redesign as the default version and is still trying to sell it. Factsheet for the redesign from mid-2015 can be found here:
http://www.northseaboats.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/63m-FAC-Trimaran.pdf
-
You know, if it wasn't for maintenance costs and slip fees, I'd be seriously looking at buying the former USCGC Ewing as a liveaboard for only $29,000:
http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1927/Custom-USCG-Steel-Cutter-2547069/Seattle/WA/United-States#.WdlmOkLn8pA
At 125 ft, it's damned huge for a boat, and it's already converted in essence. Best I could find for slip fees, though, in San Diego is around $2600/mo for a live-aboard. That doesn't include maintenance, and while they tell you 10% cost/year, somehow I suspect that's a bit low this time. Not to mention, any time you leave the pier it's around 2 gallons/nautical mile of diesel at 8 kts. That might be fine for short trips around the bay, but any long distance stuff would make keeping that 7000 gallon tank filled an expensive proposition.
Edit: added a couple then and now pics.
-
The living spaces look nice, but she definitely needs some work. And the fact they didn't include a photo of the bridge is a little worrying...
-
The living spaces look nice, but she definitely needs some work. And the fact they didn't include a photo of the bridge is a little worrying...
Oh yeah. And both ladders to the pilot house would need replacing. Also, having no access to the pilot house without going out on deck is irritating.
-
For something not seen often these days, a Light Ship! Former Coast Guard Light Ship, Nantucket.
She is currently only fully operational Light Ship remaining in the United States. She in private ownership and can move under her own power. She currently moored in New York City's Brooklyn Bridge Park.
When I was working in Boston back in late 2000s, I got to see her parked next to the place i was temporarily assigned work. Which was a treat since I am such nautical fan.
(http://www.yachtworld.co.uk/boat-content/files/2013/02/Nantucket-Lightship-night.jpg)
-
For something not seen often these days, a Light Ship! Former Coast Guard Light Ship, Nantucket.
She is currently only fully operational Light Ship remaining in the United States. She in private ownership and can move under her own power. She currently moored in New York City's Brooklyn Bridge Park.
When I was working in Boston back in late 2000s, I got to see her parked next to the place i was temporarily assigned work. Which was a treat since I am such nautical fan.
(http://www.yachtworld.co.uk/boat-content/files/2013/02/Nantucket-Lightship-night.jpg)
Well there's a ghost from my past.
For those who don't know me, my mom's side of the family are scattered over New England, with a good portion living on Martha's Vineyard (my parents actually retired there several years ago, and own a good-sized chunk of land in the northwest part of the island). Since I was a kid, I've spent portions of my summer visiting my grandparents (and these days my parents) out there- it's home away from home.
The lightship Nantucket has, on several occasions, made visits to Vineyard Haven harbor on the north end of the island, where she tends to moor up on the east side of the harbor. She's easy to spot, with that bright red hull. One of my favorite childhood memories is visiting the ship with my grandfather when I was... god, maybe six or seven? I'll have to try to find the photos I took last time she was visiting at the same time I was, hopefully get them this weekend if I can find what folder they're saved in.
A wooden half-hull model of the ship, meanwhile, sits on the wall of the main library of the house on the island, and another (crudely painted by a young Hellbie) is on a desk in one of the guest rooms. She's been a part of my life as far back as I can remember, so seeing her pop up in here was a jarring, if very pleasant, moment. Thank you!
-
I saw one of those light ships in Boston Harbor on august. I believe it was the Nantucket. Also, there's another lighthouse ship preserved as a museum in Baltimore. It is a good visit and has a small museum inside.
-
Since we're talking lightships...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Lightship_Columbia.jpg)
The Columbia River Lightship, currently residing at the maritime museum in Astoria.
-
picture chosen somewhat at random from Google images
-
Entering US service as the USN Dolly Parton? ;)
-
I wonder what's behind that shower curtain on the bridge. CIC?
Nothing too fancy I'm afraid. One of them is over the ladder bay leading off the bridge, to prevent light from other areas entering the bridge at night. From what I can see in the video, the ones over the instrument panels are there for the same reason, to hide lamps and indicators. If you want to see an Officer of the Watch do a blood vessel, all you need to do is turn on a white torch on the bridge at night....
-
Those red lights are easier on the eyes at night. I didn't appreciate until i got older when people put on the regular lights on at night nearly blinding me. With red battle lanterns, you can see fairly well when you slip between and totally dark weather decks.
-
Graf Spee after the battle and before the scuttling.
(https://s1.postimg.org/91kq8b9mfj/00-grafspee-1.jpg)
Various pieces of the wreck have been brought up including this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4765360/Uruguay-set-sell-bronze-eagle-saved-Nazi-ship.html
-
The newest USS America (LHA-6)
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/USS-America-POC.jpg)
her most recent predecessor (CV-66)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/54/c9/19/54c9194591715cf35ef8d8ab7814804c.jpg)
-
If I'm counting correctly, that is ten F35's on the deck of that Amphib. Thats...actually kinda respectable. No clue what the payload and range are like compared to the old Harriers, but that seems like a fairly legitimate threat to a whole lot of things that might need threatening. Time will tell if the air-only amphib idea is a good one or not, but looking at that picture, I have to admit I'm giving the idea a little more respect than I might have previously.
-
No clue what the payload and range are like compared to the old Harriers
Suggested figures i've seen:
AV-8A : 3,000 lbs to 200 nm
AV-8B : 4,000 lbs to 300 nm
F-35B : 4,000 lbs to 450 nm (USMC requirement) / 5,500 lbs to 490 nm (advertised)
The ship is virtually the same size as the French CVN, which carries a comparable air group of Rafales. Which - with catapults - have a bit more throw-weight.
-
Suggested figures i've seen:
AV-8A : 3,000 lbs to 200 nm
AV-8B : 4,000 lbs to 300 nm
F-35B : 4,000 lbs to 450 nm (USMC requirement) / 5,500 lbs to 490 nm (advertised)
The ship is virtually the same size as the French CVN, which carries a comparable air group of Rafales. Which - with catapults - have a bit more throw-weight.
needs a ski ramp
-
Suggested figures i've seen:
AV-8A : 3,000 lbs to 200 nm
AV-8B : 4,000 lbs to 300 nm
F-35B : 4,000 lbs to 450 nm (USMC requirement) / 5,500 lbs to 490 nm (advertised)
The ship is virtually the same size as the French CVN, which carries a comparable air group of Rafales. Which - with catapults - have a bit more throw-weight.
assuming it actually delivers what is promised. so far the F35A hasn't quite managed to meet the specs for either the range or the payload.. though to be fair, those are probably closer to being fixable than the maneuverability issues and the various technical problems it's been having. the F35B has had some problems in those areas too.
-
One mark in the F-35's favor is that it can take that 4000 pound load in a slick configuration, purely on internal ordnance. That means not giving up what stealth aspects it has, compared to the Rafale.
-
I did a double-take at the F-35 count myself.
So for all the furore about the LPH vs LPD issue, at least the USN got 2 baby carriers out of it eh?
CV-66 was the first model I put together. Atrociously done, but I remember her fondly.
-
needs a ski ramp
Yep, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide looking like good forward planning for our squids.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/HMAS_Canberra_in_June_2015.jpg)
-
awesome
-
Yep, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide looking like good forward planning for our squids.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/HMAS_Canberra_in_June_2015.jpg)
You could see if the USN would do swapsies?
-
You could see if the USN would do swapsies?
No, because the ship's flight deck not strong enough to handle the heat that the F/A-35Bs generates. Aussie didn't want pay for that or the Spanish didn't were not aware of the issues that supersonic vtol causes. I think, if had the Harrier been a earlier Supersonic Jet type it would properly have the same issues.
Ships like the HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide would need remanufactured Harrier Jump Jet or a new design that's powered by a subsonic engine.
That or they were planning to operate subsonic UCAV from the ship like the X-47 Refueling jet as such.
-
I did a double-take at the F-35 count myself.
So for all the furore about the LPH vs LPD issue, at least the USN got 2 baby carriers out of it eh?
CV-66 was the first model I put together. Atrociously done, but I remember her fondly.
Then you might enjoy this article http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8798/heres-the-usmcs-plan-for-lightning-carriers-brimming-with-f-35bs?iid=sr-link4
It shows the potential to fit 22 F-35Bs on a LHA.
-
No, because the ship's flight deck not strong enough to handle the heat that the F/A-35Bs generates. Aussie didn't want pay for that or the Spanish didn't were not aware of the issues that supersonic vtol causes. I think, if had the Harrier been a earlier Supersonic Jet type it would properly have the same issues.
Ships like the HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide would need remanufactured Harrier Jump Jet or a new design that's powered by a subsonic engine.
That or they were planning to operate subsonic UCAV from the ship like the X-47 Refueling jet as such.
Not true at all. The deck can't handle the heat because it's not fitted with the specialised coating needed to launch vectored thrust aircraft, this was a deliberate decision based on the fact that it is an Amphibious Assault ship, not a carrier. The deck also lacks arrestor gear and other necessary fittings for fixed wing flight operations, once again, a deliberate decision. It's a really cool deck to walk around on, but when I was on there all I could think of was whipping around it in a motorised go cart and eventually going soaring off the ski ramp. :-)
-
Then you might enjoy this article http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8798/heres-the-usmcs-plan-for-lightning-carriers-brimming-with-f-35bs?iid=sr-link4
It shows the potential to fit 22 F-35Bs on a LHA.
Interesting O0
-
Not true at all. The deck can't handle the heat because it's not fitted with the specialised coating needed to launch vectored thrust aircraft, this was a deliberate decision based on the fact that it is an Amphibious Assault ship, not a carrier. The deck also lacks arrestor gear and other necessary fittings for fixed wing flight operations, once again, a deliberate decision. It's a really cool deck to walk around on, but when I was on there all I could think of was whipping around it in a motorised go cart and eventually going soaring off the ski ramp. :-)
The US America-Class LHAs and the USS Wasp don't have arresting gear for the F-35s, that's why they need the coating, for the vertical landings. What I'm not totally sure about is if the coating is needed for the full length of the deck for takeoffs or just for the rear landing zone. During takeoff the rear exhaust is angled roughly 45° downward, which results in less heat & loads on the deck, maybe enough that the coating isn't needed.
-
The US America-Class LHAs and the USS Wasp don't have arresting gear for the F-35s, that's why they need the coating, for the vertical landings. What I'm not totally sure about is if the coating is needed for the full length of the deck for takeoffs or just for the rear landing zone. During takeoff the rear exhaust is angled roughly 45° downward, which results in less heat & loads on the deck, maybe enough that the coating isn't needed.
CURRENT operations have only utilized the rear deck area, but that doesn't mean it will remain that way- treating the entire deck is probably wise in case plans have to change (like, say, damage to the aft deck forcing the forward area to be used instead, or a really mean poodle is hanging around the fantail).
-
What I'm not totally sure about is if the coating is needed for the full length of the deck for takeoffs or just for the rear landing zone.
At least on USS Wasp it was apparently only applied to "landing spot 9" (experimentally), on USS America apparently for the aft third of the flight deck and around four landing spots where MV-22 operations would point their exhaust (although in these four there's a time limit on how long the Ospreys can run their tilt-rotors to not damage the deck).
The main problem for operations apparently isn't the F-35B, but the MV-22. With the F-35B you can mitigate damage by applying a slight bit of forward thrust to creep across the deck, thus not pointing your exhaust at the same point during the whole time. With the MV-22, landing entirely vertically due to the tilt-rotors and always pointing the exhausts of their nacelles straight down, apparently even just keeping the engines running on the deck (like you might do even in flight prep) for 15 minutes will melt a non-coated deck.
-
Nice comparison - Bismark, Iowa, and Yamato side-by-side.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d6/fd/02/d6fd029d841daaf81ea954e5222d73e0.jpg)
The design compromises to let the Iowas go through the Canal are obvious - not only the flat sides, but the increased length providing partial compensation.
(Sudden mad thought - see the aerodynamic spike on the Trident. Wonder if a hydrodynamic spike would work? ;) )
Also, note the turrets on the Iowa appear larger than those of the Yamato. That's got to help with ease of use & repair.
Lastly, the three different AA philosophies. Admittedly, not entirely fair to Bismark.
-
The US America-Class LHAs and the USS Wasp don't have arresting gear for the F-35s, that's why they need the coating, for the vertical landings. What I'm not totally sure about is if the coating is needed for the full length of the deck for takeoffs or just for the rear landing zone. During takeoff the rear exhaust is angled roughly 45° downward, which results in less heat & loads on the deck, maybe enough that the coating isn't needed.
I wasn't going to go into that level of detail, but hey, here goes!
The coating is still required for any decline in vector, it's just much lighter for STOL. VTOL takes a much heavier coating, and honestly, if STOL is available, you're an idiot not to use it, but that's for another time.Nice comparison - Bismark, Iowa, and Yamato side-by-side.
The design compromises to let the Iowas go through the Canal are obvious - not only the flat sides, but the increased length providing partial compensation.
(Sudden mad thought - see the aerodynamic spike on the Trident. Wonder if a hydrodynamic spike would work? ;) )
Also, note the turrets on the Iowa appear larger than those of the Yamato. That's got to help with ease of use & repair.
Lastly, the three different AA philosophies. Admittedly, not entirely fair to Bismark.
I remember visiting the Mighty Mo in Pearl, I've never seen such an awe inspiring sight as when I first turned around on her forecastle. Amazing girls, such beautiful ladies.
-
At least on USS Wasp it was apparently only applied to "landing spot 9" (experimentally), on USS America apparently for the aft third of the flight deck and around four landing spots where MV-22 operations would point their exhaust (although in these four there's a time limit on how long the Ospreys can run their tilt-rotors to not damage the deck).
The main problem for operations apparently isn't the F-35B, but the MV-22. With the F-35B you can mitigate damage by applying a slight bit of forward thrust to creep across the deck, thus not pointing your exhaust at the same point during the whole time. With the MV-22, landing entirely vertically due to the tilt-rotors and always pointing the exhausts of their nacelles straight down, apparently even just keeping the engines running on the deck (like you might do even in flight prep) for 15 minutes will melt a non-coated deck.
That is interesting. A few years ago, when I had an involvement on the periphery of the project planning for the introduction of the F-35, there was also a problem with the exhaust of the APU in the F-35 pointing downwards causing a problem under each point the F-35 would be parked at. Hopefully, they finally got around to changing the design in the production models to having the APU exhaust vent upwards instead.
-
It's too bad France won't consider using the F-35. They're having so many problems budgeting a 2nd carrier, originally they were supposed to work with Britain to create a third Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier, but they bowed out. I think the issue aside from pride, was cost of up keeping nuclear carrier. I am at a loss why, I believe it was cost for the ship. France has it’s own interests on how a ship should be but I think pride of not building it themselves hurts them as well.
Outside the US no one but France has such a ship. With France working so closely with Italy, they could take lesson from them and make smaller Jump Carrier instead, but that would be mean they can't use the own home brew fighter jet which is a conventional design. Italy's Navy seems to have gone from small Harrier carrier, to a larger one and now their working a LHD which will essentially replace their older Jump Carrier.
The Italian Aircraft Carrier Cavour with the USS Harry S Truman and France’s one and only carrier, the Charles de Gaulle in the background.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Carriers_Cavour_%28550%29_-_Harry_S._Truman_%28CVN-75%29_and_Charles_de_Gaulle_%28R91%29_underway_in_2013.JPG)
-
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that it's not as simple as saying 'build the de Gaulle again!'. With the exception of the Kuznetsov, it's hard to think of a recent carrier that has had more engine trouble. Sometimes that just happens and one ship in an otherwise excellent class has some hoodoo going on with its systems (the USS Oregon City comes to mind), but... when it's the lead ship? What if you build a second ship and she has the same 'no worky worky' problems? That it's the actual design of the engines/ship and not just bad luck the first time around?
That means a major redesign of the powerplant, at the very least, to avoid the issues from the de Gaulle. That's expensive, time-consuming, and still comes with no guarantees that it will work right. The QE-class ship idea was a bad one to begin with as well- it makes sense in many areas, but the French seem determined to stick with a nuclear power plant (for reasons that aren't entirely clear, frankly), and that means either settling for a ship they don't want or finding a way to shoehorn a reactor into a design not intended for it- in which case we're back to major redesign work and might as well have just built another de Gaulle to begin with.
Leaving aside the questions about why France needs carriers to begin with (which wander too close to Rule 4 for my taste), at this point they may be better off designing something new to replace the de Gaulle down the road a ways, building two of them if they really feel they need two ships, and for now getting by with the de Gaulle and the knowledge that they can rely on American and (now) British flight decks to fill in the gaps where they need.
(http://nationalinterest.org/files/styles/main_image_on_posts/public/main_images/HMS_Kent_carries_out_manoeuvres_with_French_Ship_FS_Charles_De_Gaulle._MOD_45158508.jpg?itok=jAS9FwfM)
-
From what I've read the French wants nuclear power for range (world power, darn it! ;D ) and absolutely wants catapults (a much more sensible requirement IMHO).
So even if the British could have talked them out of nuke power it would have required the QE class to be built for catapults. But the EMALS looked pretty shaky back then, which means they would have needed a steam plant. And we know how well such a power setup is working for the Russians...
IMHO nuclear did make more sense for the British, but they couldn't really afford it. So what ya gonna do?
-
From what I've read the French wants nuclear power for range (world power, darn it! ;D ) and absolutely wants catapults (a much more sensible requirement IMHO).
So even if the British could have talked them out of nuke power it would have required the QE class to be built for catapults. But the EMALS looked pretty shaky back then, which means they would have needed a steam plant. And we know how well such a power setup is working for the Russians...
IMHO nuclear did make more sense for the British, but they couldn't really afford it. So what ya gonna do?
Ask the Americans for a couple of reactors?
-
France has a LOT of overseas holdings, it's no surprise to me that they put as much emphasis as they do on naval power. And that's on top of the fact that the Med is the only thing between their shores and some of the nastier hot spots in today's world.
-
I think the French could manage without nuclear range (they did with their older carriers after all). But as noted - catapults...
Ask the Americans for a couple of reactors?
I don't think the reactors themselves are the problems (after all the British have naval reactors for their subs), it's the cost of running nuclear ships. AFAIK that's still significantly higher than conventional power (which is one reason we don't see nuclear-powered civilian ships).
-
France has a LOT of overseas holdings, it's no surprise to me that they put as much emphasis as they do on naval power.
The way I look at it, those island holdings are basically aircraft carriers.
-
IMHO, the French are generally highly pragmatic and conservative in defence spending, and their defence programs have much to be admired. The downside of that attitude is seeming unwillingness to take very expensive risks such as committing to 2 carriers, which is really what is needed to keep at least 1 flattop deployed at all times.
As a footnote, the Brits opted not for a nuclear carrier not just because of cost, but reasoning also that it allows them access to more ports as most do not allow nuclear vessels to dock... plus saving a lot more room in the design.
The way I look at it, those island holdings are basically aircraft carriers.
Apparently islands with airfields are the exception rather than the norm. Hence the importance of LPDs to the US, UK and France.
-
Those islands likely don't all need military assistance at the same time. Nuclear carriers are expensive as all hell, but it honestly would not surprise me if someone were to tell me that it's still cheaper to build/operate a nuke flattop and send it around the world as needed than to build equip and man military bases at all of those holdings. The manpower savings alone would be immense.
-
than to build equip and man military bases at all of those holdings. The manpower savings alone would be immense.
Unlike other countries*, France does maintain a relatively strong on-site patrol presence in every overseas territory. Typically these consist of:
- army assets (token force: one mixed regiment of infantry with some cavalry assets with around 1,000 men, usually split to two or three bases)
- navy assets (token force: one patrol frigate with helicopter, one frigate-sized support/supply ship with added patrol role and one Gendarmerie 20m patrol craft for local policing)
- air assets (token force: 2 CN-235 transport aircraft, 2 SA-330 helicopters)
That across six domestic theaters plus a given number of permanent foreign bases, with some variation.
* compare the above to e.g. British overseas troops, which e.g. for the Caribbean holdings amounts to a single batallion of locally conscripted (!) troops in a single location.
-
Unlike other countries*, France does maintain a relatively strong on-site patrol presence in every overseas territory. Typically these consist of:
- army assets (token force: one mixed regiment of infantry with some cavalry assets with around 1,000 men, usually split to two or three bases)
- navy assets (token force: one patrol frigate with helicopter, one frigate-sized support/supply ship with added patrol role and one Gendarmerie 20m patrol craft for local policing)
Yeah, the Floréal-class frigate was purposely built to handle these overseas locations and provide a light Frigate support to those territories.
FS Vendemiaire
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Vendemiaire_2.jpg)
As side note, i wonder if their fleet or the British would have been bit larger handling these colonies they let go.
I haven't read history much how the colonies were after World War II that led them to being free. France properly would had the budget to maintain larger fleet most likely.[/list]
-
As side note, i wonder if their fleet or the British would have been bit larger handling these colonies they let go.
I haven't read history much how the colonies were after World War II that led them to being free. France properly would had the budget to maintain larger fleet most likely.[/list]
I would really love to know what it is you just said here...
-
I would really love to know what it is you just said here...
I was saying that i wonder what the French and British fleets would have been like in this modern age if the UK/France still retained their Colonies.
-
I was saying that i wonder what the French and British fleets would have been like in this modern age if the UK/France still retained their Colonies.
The Royal Navy has always been there to keep the maritime trade flowing; the Empire was really just a trade system writ large.
The Royal Navy had the pre-WW2 cruisers to achieve this (hence the shift to light cruisers from heavy cruisers).
I'm not sure what retaining the Empire would have done to that.
France is a bit different as they turned a lot of little bits of "empire" into France with no difference between the mainland in Europe and the little nuggets of rock scattered around the world.
-
I haven't read history much how the colonies were after World War II that led them to being free.
French colonies that became peacefully independent were mostly inland. There would likely be an additional "overseas flotilla" like those described in the Gulf of Guinea and possibly another based around Senegal.
However, France does in fact maintain a patrol fleet - based in Brest and Toulon in l'hexagon, currently composed of nine D'Estienne d'Orves corvettes - that when not patrolling European EEZs does continuous patrols, port visits and e.g. joint training in that particular area too (there's pretty much always one of them somewhere in West Africa).
Below: Commandant l'Herminier off the coast of Sierra Leone.
(https://abload.de/img/c053451d9e7946b0-ba0d5bjni.jpg)
Their original ASW outfit was mostly removed about 10 years ago after they were relegated to the patrol role. Armament it's now pretty much identical to the Floreal class patrol frigates (100mm main, two 20mm, Simbad for air defence), just with two twin 550mm ASW torpedo tubes left over instead of the - rather symbolic - two Exocets the Floreals carry. Crew size is virtually identical, main difference is range - where the larger purpose-built Floreals beat the D'Estienne d'Orves threefold. Oh, and the Panther helo on the Floreal of course.
-
IMHO, the French are generally highly pragmatic and conservative in defence spending, and their defence programs have much to be admired. The downside of that attitude is seeming unwillingness to take very expensive risks such as committing to 2 carriers, which is really what is needed to keep at least 1 flattop deployed at all times.
*snip*
It's actually three to make one. Two only works if nothing ever breaks out of schedule.
-
It's actually three to make one. Two only works if nothing ever breaks out of schedule.
Sort of. We use the rule of three to one because you will traditionally have one in refit, one in work up, one in operational service, but the operational service window is longer than the refit/workup requirement, three will actually get you roughly 60-75% service time, as opposed to 45-55%.
Should you really, really need those ships, say in combat against a parity opponent, the refits aren't going to happen for anything other than a catastrophic failure, similar to aircraft, your service availability is around 90%, as you will still require some scheduled maintenance and fueling/replenishment.
-
For the USN, long transit times from homeports to most operational areas make the 1 in 3 rule a must.
For the RN, and probably France, 1 in 2 is doable. Big Liz and POW (no idea what nickname the Brits have appended) expect to take turns with 2-3 months' overlap actually.
On the subject of overseas territories, the British territories are more scattered and smaller than the French, hence a different approach to overseas garrisons of which a carrier capability is essential. Gibraltar, Falklands and Crete are the only ones I can think off the top of my head with a sizable garrison, additionally Brunei is host to the Gurkhas (ever since they were instrumental in defeating a coup, the Sultan of Brunei has funded at least 1 battalion of them based there) plus whichever infantry battalion and SAS troops are doing jungle training at the time.
-
The rotation factor mostly depends on how a ship is used. In Germany the calculation is 3.0 for regular units for full forward deployments, i.e. continuous missions (i.e. to keep deploying a frigate to somewhere around the Horn of Africa you need three frigates in total). For "readiness", i.e. keeping a unit available near home for deployment to contingency missions of up to 6 months within any given year a rotation factor of 1.5 is used. For submarines due to higher maintenance requirements rotation factors of 4.0 and 2.0 are used respectively.
To my knowledge the French calculation is virtually identical, and Charles de Gaulle and her escorts are on a 1.5 RF.
The idea about 2 Lizzies and 1 CdG numbers-wise was to have two carriers (on a 1.5 RF) jointly available under the Lancaster Agreement.
-
Interesting that the French are having so much trouble with the engines, considering something like 70% of France's electricity is provided by nuclear power plants. They know how to build them and get power, I wonder what's plaguing them on the CDG.
-
I believe the 3 for 1 for RAN as Nightlord said is the reason why HMAS Choules is being kept after it was initially bought as a stop-gap between the early retirement of HMAS Manoora (formerly USS Fairfax County) and HMAS Kanimbla (formerly USS Saginaw) and arrival of HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide.
-
I believe the 3 for 1 for RAN as Nightlord said is the reason why HMAS Choules is being kept after it was initially bought as a stop-gap between the early retirement of HMAS Manoora (formerly USS Fairfax County) and HMAS Kanimbla (formerly USS Saginaw) and arrival of HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide.
The HMAS Manoora (formerly USS Fairfax County) and HMAS Kanimbla (formerly USS Saginaw) were in poor shape from what I've heard, right?
-
Yep, we had to spend an extra $400 million during the refit to get rid of all the rust before we commissioned them, then we had to retire them early because their machinery started to fail in spectacular fashion (http://www.smh.com.au/national/ship-metres-from-harbour-crash-20110223-1b5o2.html (http://www.smh.com.au/national/ship-metres-from-harbour-crash-20110223-1b5o2.html)) and give the squid brown underpants moments (I understand this is never good when you are wearing whites). The cost of the machinery repairs/refits were going to be excessive for two old rustbuckets that were only a few years away from retirement.
HMAS Kanimbla
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/ships/Cover.jpg)
-
Interesting that the French are having so much trouble with the engines, considering something like 70% of France's electricity is provided by nuclear power plants. They know how to build them and get power, I wonder what's plaguing them on the CDG.
Well, like I'd said with the USS Oregon City, sometimes a ship just has trouble that can't be explained. That ship was the first of her class, but her sisters worked fine (and were in fact converted to missile cruisers, while OC was retired within two years of completion and scrapped), and the class was little more than a sub-class of the Baltimores, of which the Americans completed quite a few. In this one odd case though, what should have been 'same ol' tunes' for the shipyard ended up just never really working right. Whether that's the case for de Gaulle or not is hard to say, being a one-ship class, but it's worth noting that none of their nuclear-powered subs have had any major problems that I'm aware of, anyway. They clearly know what they're doing in a broad sense at least- just in this particular case, it's not panning out.
Note that even a refit at Norfolk several years ago didn't resolve the problems, which means even American engineers (who certainly know nuclear carriers by now!) were left scratching their heads. Maybe the current refit will finally resolve things, who knows?
And another photo because I hate posting in here without leaving one, here she is in company with USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.
(https://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2016/december/Rafale_M__US_Navy_aircraft_carrier_USS_Dwight_D_Eisenhower_CVN_69_2.jpg)
-
Interesting that the French are having so much trouble with the engines, considering something like 70% of France's electricity is provided by nuclear power plants. They know how to build them and get power, I wonder what's plaguing them on the CDG.
The problem with propulsion at initial trials wasn't the reactors but the propellers (the special design had material problems leading to cracks, so they installed old propellers for the cruise back that they got from whereever - which then had problems with vibration in this setup).
The problem in 2010 wasn't even propulsion - there were microleaks in the insulation (!) of an electrical cabinet controlling a safety valve for the reactors. With triple redudancy on that valve. Since this was on the nuclear circuit and France wasn't in a state of emergency the Navy had the same safety regulations to follow as a civilian nuclear plant operator - full cold stop, replacement, testing of the new valve.
-
The problem with propulsion at initial trials wasn't the reactors but the propellers (the special design had material problems leading to cracks, so they installed old propellers for the cruise back that they got from whereever - which then had problems with vibration in this setup).
The problem in 2010 wasn't even propulsion - there were microleaks in the insulation (!) of an electrical cabinet controlling a safety valve for the reactors. With triple redudancy on that valve. Since this was on the nuclear circuit and France wasn't in a state of emergency the Navy had the same safety regulations to follow as a civilian nuclear plant operator - full cold stop, replacement, testing of the new valve.
I guess an aircraft carrier's machinery needs to do different things to a submarine; it isn't necessarily the nuclear reactor that has different requirements (it just sits there and glows in the corner) but while a submarine might try to sneak around slowly and very very quietly most of the time, a carrier needs to turn into the wind and sail (steam?) quickly to create the wind over the bow to help lift the aircraft
And now here are some photos...
-
oh, and I really hope HMS Prince of Wales grows a bit, she's still only a baby carrier
-
Anyone knew if this is a reliable info source?
http://navalanalyses.blogspot.com/2017/09/turkish-navy-modernization-and.html?m=1
According to that article Turkey may be joining the light carrier club in the near future.
-
Anyone knew if this is a reliable info source?
Didn't read anywhere there beyond the Rule 4 venturing first paragraph.
According to that article Turkey may be joining the light carrier club in the near future.
They've been planning that for a while. TCG Anadolu has been in construction since May 2016, planned to be delivered in 2021 and operational by 2023, by buying the Juan Carlos design and building it locally; the Navantia-Sedef cooperation won over a competing domestic design and a Chinese offer. Originally it was planned in the Australian layout without a ski ramp; this was later re-added to the design (the shipyard manages to misspell it as "sky ramp" though).
-
Didn't read anywhere there beyond the Rule 4 venturing first paragraph.
I don't see it. But if you report it and the rest of the mods agree with you, I'll certainly take the Warning.
-
Seems like a lot of nations are getting in the Helicopter carrier business. I wonder if Canada will get into it. I like how some of them say they are not built for F35s but most of the nations that are building the ships will have F35
-
The question that may not be answerable on this forum is: What are the Canadians up to/want to be up to that requires a carrier?
-
Protecting Tim Hortons?
-
@kato - ah, so the technical term is the rotation factor, thanks.
oh, and I really hope HMS Prince of Wales grows a bit, she's still only a baby carrier
They grow up so fast don't they?
(https://s1.postimg.org/7w16pvc9a7/fx170244041.jpg)
Seems like a lot of nations are getting in the Helicopter carrier business. I wonder if Canada will get into it. I like how some of them say they are not built for F35s but most of the nations that are building the ships will have F35
Only the USMC, UK and Italy are buying F-35Bs, the latter 2 for the QE-class and Cavour respectively, everyone else is buying the land-based A variant or in the case of the USN, the C variant for the Nimitzes/Fords
Cavour and Garibaldi, 2 years ago
(https://s1.postimg.org/950jrue38f/j_S2vd_UH.jpg)
HUGE version here: http://i.imgur.com/jS2vdUH.jpg
A lot of navies discovered that helicopter carriers or LPDs are very handy in peacetime as well as in war. But I think, given the Canucks' budget, they are better off focusing on recapitalising their frigate fleet.
-
the C variant probably won't see much spread.. the USN is about the only user of catapults for the near future aside from the French, and the French haven't show any interest in the F-35 (probably because the Rafale suffices for most of their needs)
-
I believe the 3 for 1 for RAN as Nightlord said is the reason why HMAS Choules is being kept after it was initially bought as a stop-gap between the early retirement of HMAS Manoora (formerly USS Fairfax County) and HMAS Kanimbla (formerly USS Saginaw) and arrival of HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide.
That's 90% of the reason, the other 10% is that Adelaide and Canberra can't fit into every harbour... When those ladies hit FoC, Choules might get a rest although we'll probably keep her going because she's a nice asset to have, if a little fragile.
Yep, we had to spend an extra $400 million during the refit to get rid of all the rust before we commissioned them, then we had to retire them early because their machinery started to fail in spectacular fashion (http://www.smh.com.au/national/ship-metres-from-harbour-crash-20110223-1b5o2.html (http://www.smh.com.au/national/ship-metres-from-harbour-crash-20110223-1b5o2.html)) and give the squid brown underpants moments (I understand this is never good when you are wearing whites). The cost of the machinery repairs/refits were going to be excessive for two old rustbuckets that were only a few years away from retirement.
HMAS Kanimbla
Eh, every ship rusts, it's part of being made from steel. :-P
Mind you, for the purpose they were bought for, Kanimbla and Manoora were some of the greatest value for money the RAN ever justified. (Hint: They weren't bought for the purpose you likely think).
-
Well, me thinks that Kanimbla and Manoora were bought as the first tentative steps for the RAN getting a proper Fleet Air Arm again . . .
As a blue-suiter who served with a number of ex-Fleet Air Arm types, I look forward to the day O0
-
The C Lighting model looks like will only go to the US. Some countries like Canada and Austrilia might be interested in the C more because of the more fuel and more range for the large area that needs to be covered. But I doubt it.
-
oh, and I really hope HMS Prince of Wales grows a bit, she's still only a baby carrier
In that pic it looks almost like its a modern version of the HMS M2.
-
The C Lighting model looks like will only go to the US. Some countries like Canada and Austrilia might be interested in the C more because of the more fuel and more range for the large area that needs to be covered. But I doubt it.
Weren't Norway looking at the C? They've got a lot of short airstrips and pretty long distances, so IIRC they thought the carrier variant would work better.
Or did it turn out that the runway requirement for the A and the C are similar if you don't have catapults and arrestor wires?
-
Norway currently operates 6 F-35A s trainers in the USA with 46 more on the way
-
The C model would work best for many nations that are quite large. The C has a huge fuel load internally, hose and drouge refueling that many nations use. Getting rid of the arrester gear should be a easy fix. The only major factor of the C that the A is the G limit. The C is only good for 7.5 G while the A is rated for 9G, so that might be a factor in the "dogfight"
-
I dunno, what about the Israeli solution? F-35As with CFTs?
-
Goin' old-school for a bit with an F-4K launch from HMS Ark Royal.
(http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/1626-1/Phantom+005+dusk+launch+Ark+waist+cat.jpg)
-
The French flew the Last Gunfighter off of flat tops also.
-
Always thought it funny to call the F-8E a Gunfighter when ... it carries missiles in that picture. R.550 Magic 2, to be exact. Up till around 1990 they also carried Matra 530s, the French equivalent of the (BVR) AIM-7E.
And yes, i know the French call it le dernier chasseur-canon too.
-
(https://abload.de/img/brilliant-mariner-kic10uio.jpg)
Lineup for NATO exercise Brilliant Mariner in Toulon, France, from bottom to top:
- (row 1) L9013 Mistral (FR) - Mistral class LHD
- (row 2 towards sea) F451 Limnos (GR) - Elli class frigate [ASW]
- (row 2 towards quay) F83 Numancia (ES) - Santa Maria class frigate [ASW]
- (row 3) L61 Juan Carlos (ES) - Juan Carlos class LHD
- (row 4 towards sea) F334 Francisco de Almedia (PT) - Karel Doorman class frigate [GP]
- (row 4 towards quay) F710 La Fayette (FR) - La Fayette class frigate [GP]
- (row 5 towards sea) F244 Barbaros (TR) - MEKO 200 class frigate [GP]
- (row 5 towards quay) F714 Guepratte (FR) - La Fayette class frigate [GP]
- (row 6 towards sea) M5558 Crotone (IT) - Lerici class minehunter
- (row 6 center) M261 Edremit (TR) - Tripartite class minehunter
- (row 6 towards quay) H88 Enterprise (UK) - hydrographic survey vessel
- (row 7) F312 Otto Sverdrup (NO) - Nansen class frigate [ASW]
- (row 8) D621 Chevalier de Paul (FR) - Horizon class destroyer [AAW]
- (row 9) F103 Blas de Lezo (ES) - Alvaro de Bazan class frigate [AAW]
- (row 10) D34 Diamond (UK) - Daring class destroyer [AAW]
- (row 11) F805 Eversten (NL) - De Zeven Provincien class frigate [AAW]
- (row 12) F363 Niels Juel (DK) - Iver Huitfeldt calss frigate [AAW]
- (row 13) F339 Charlottetown (CA) - Halifax class frigate [ASW]
Some rows aren't all that visible behind the others. I like the "bracketing" in that line-up though. The singular ship up top is an unknown La Fayette frigate.
Part of the same lineup from the ground, basically rows 8-12 visible here:
(https://abload.de/img/22095861_1073363692792buu4.jpg)
A couple more ships are also taking part, but are not lined up on the same section of the port. These are basically:
- L17 Esbern Snare (DK), Absalon class command ship
- D643 Jean de Vienne (FR), Georges Leygues class destroyer [ASW]
- D653 Languedoc (FR), FREMM class destroyer [ASW]
- M645 Orion (FR), Tripartite class minehunter
- M648 Lyre (FR), Tripartite class minehunter
- A608 Var (FR), Durance class fleet oiler
- A1443 Rhön (GE), Rhön class fleet oiler
There's also a submarine in the exercise but no one says which. So i'd give some money on it being a French nuclear attack submarine.
Juan Carlos is deployed to Brilliant Mariner with 6 AV-8B Harrier II (and 3 Sea Kings). I'm not sure whether Mistral actually officially carries helos for the exercise - she's definitely carrying a EDA-R landing craft catamaran and two LCUs though. Pictures of the exercise show at least one Puma, one NH90 and a single Tiger combat helicopter operating from her.
Land-based fixed-wing aviation involved in the exercise is the 12th Fighter Squadron of the French Navy (12 Rafale M - remember, CdG is in the yard) and 115th Air Force Base with two Fighter Squadrons of the French Air Force (up to 24 Mirage 2000B/C); also, one E-2 Hawkeye and Atlantique each of the French Navy, one P-3C of the German Navy and one E-3F of the French Air Force.
The whole thing at sea: kinda big photo 1 (https://scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/22291392_1249243718514710_7140509357577937320_o.jpg?oh=29b75137751d9e19696ead8f50225e48&oe=5A699F28) and 2 (https://scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/22338759_1249243761848039_8137893593016770358_o.jpg?oh=aab9b43ff90975cd96ae5445ab07a4cb&oe=5A3AAE95).
Also have some brilliant VR video on Youtube from the exercise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbJ2gGmJa8
(VR as in: click your mouse in it and move the camera...)
-
Lovely photos - thank you Kato
-
Nice photos!
-
For scale : The flexdeck of destroyer-sized and -shaped multi-purpose command ship L17 Esbern Snare, shown off to allied sailors at Brilliant Mariner. It somehow looks a lot wider from this angle - even if it's really more of a tunnel, being only 11m wide - but 85m long. That hand of the one guy is kinda like "and if you look allll the way back there you'll see the exit ramp".
(https://abload.de/img/flexdeckr0u3e.png)
The attachments on the ground for tieing down loads are interestingly different than the ones previously shown on her sister Absalon. Rated to transport about one fifth of Denmark's entire Leopard 2 tank forces in one go...
The flex deck can alternatively be used to stow e.g. a containerized command center with up to 50 consoles that tie into the ship's combat management system.
-
Great pictures.
Why are they selling the Esbern Snare? They can't afford it now?
-
Gotta love OmniShips... :)
To my knowledge, it's not for sale.
-
Only for scale ;)
Here's the vehicle deck of a Mistral, filled, for comparison:
(https://abload.de/img/734469_48340699170503grumv.jpg)
Aircraft hangar on Juan Carlos, not really much roomier:
(https://abload.de/img/e6363b821aeb19ccc76a6g2uuw.jpg)
-
HMS Diamond - the frigate with a cherry on top!
-
is "flex deck" a proper term for such set ups, or more of an informal one?
-
Did the Dutch have better time with Flex standard system than us was? Does their version of it work better than the US's version?
-
From what I understand, their version actually works, and has for years.
-
probably because they were less ambitious, and divided up the module functions a bit better.
-
I knew about the StanFlex system, but i hadn't known other abilities of it or if had been fully successful. It seems so, but article on the modules showed that it wasn't substitute for a for dedicated to the role. Still it is very cost effective and the modules can be kept in storage for a while without too much preventative maintenance.
I guess US Navy went too far with theirs, i wondered why the US had issues with their version.
The 6,000 ton Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate, a class equipped with StanFlex.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/F361_Iver_Huitfeldt.jpg/1280px-F361_Iver_Huitfeldt.jpg)
She balanced design; She comes with slots for six modules, 4 slots up front so she can accommodated added missile launchers such as Harpoon. She also 32-cell mK 41 VLS launcher, and Mk56 VLS launcher for Evolved Sea Sparrow, and pair of 3inch Guns backed up with 35mm CIWS.
Pretty neat design.
-
I'm sorry, I'm sure that's a fine ship and works well for its crew and navy, but it looks ... unexciting.
Heck, this is at least more colourful:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--aUflD2hj--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/snma8loao2p6mq5ea9rp.jpg)
The Vernon C Bain Correctional Centre. Yup, prison hulk. Bringing it back George III-style! O0
-
Some pictures taken of the CV-12 USS Hornet. The twin AA mount was under construction last time I was there, couldn't get a closeup this time because of the poor air quality from the Napa fires, closing the deck and island for tours.
-
is "flex deck" a proper term for such set ups, or more of an informal one?
The Danish Navy calls it that officially ("store flexdæk" : "large flex deck").
She balanced design; She comes with slots for six modules, 4 slots up front so she can accommodated added missile launchers such as Harpoon. She also 32-cell mK 41 VLS launcher, and Mk56 VLS launcher for Evolved Sea Sparrow, and pair of 3inch Guns backed up with 35mm CIWS.
Both the Absalon and the Iver Huitfeldt classes have a "weapon deck" (that's a bit more an informal term), i.e. a "tub" midships in which the main weapon systems are mounted. This tub holds four StanFlex missile modules, either 12-cell Mk56/ESSM modules or 8-cell Harpoon launcher modules. The Mk41 on Iver Huitfeldts is within that - somewhat larger - tub too, although not removable, with Absalons instead fitting a fifth StanFlex module in the tub.
They usually don't fill out all the module slots in the tub btw. When filled, the default layout is two Harpoon launch modules + two ESSM launch modules, with Absalon carrying a third ESSM module in lieu of Iver Huitfeldts VLS (default maximum fit 16 Harpoon + 36 ESSM in Absalon / 16 Harpoon + 24 ESSM + 32 SM-2 in Iver Huitfeldt).
The 76mm guns can be replaced with 35mm CIWS, these are modular too. However the Danish Navy only owns about 4 CIWS StanFlex modules for all its ship, so they only put them on those ships on deployment while the other run around with 76mm in those slots.
-
Well, me thinks that Kanimbla and Manoora were bought as the first tentative steps for the RAN getting a proper Fleet Air Arm again . . .
As a blue-suiter who served with a number of ex-Fleet Air Arm types, I look forward to the day O0
Sadly, no... Very close though. Their reason was only to enable the eventual purchase of Canberra and Adelaide.
I'm sorry, I'm sure that's a fine ship and works well for its crew and navy, but it looks ... unexciting.
Heck, this is at least more colourful:
The Vernon C Bain Correctional Centre. Yup, prison hulk. Bringing it back George III-style! O0
Dull is the new black there Worktroll. It's just what it is, chunky went out years ago.
-
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--aUflD2hj--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/snma8loao2p6mq5ea9rp.jpg)
The Vernon C Bain Correctional Centre. Yup, prison hulk. Bringing it back George III-style! O0
The difference being that unlike modern times, George III never had to worry about subsurface threats aside from Turtle and the odd hungry mermaid. Not sure I'd trust a prison hulk as secure, unless the water around it were clear and filled with enough active sonar to make a small dolphin explode, or Screaming Eels.
The Danish Navy calls it that officially ("store flexdæk" : "large flex deck").
Both the Absalon and the Iver Huitfeldt classes have a "weapon deck" (that's a bit more an informal term), i.e. a "tub" midships in which the main weapon systems are mounted. This tub holds four StanFlex missile modules, either 12-cell Mk56/ESSM modules or 8-cell Harpoon launcher modules. The Mk41 on Iver Huitfeldts is within that - somewhat larger - tub too, although not removable, with Absalons instead fitting a fifth StanFlex module in the tub.
They usually don't fill out all the module slots in the tub btw. When filled, the default layout is two Harpoon launch modules + two ESSM launch modules, with Absalon carrying a third ESSM module in lieu of Iver Huitfeldts VLS (default maximum fit 16 Harpoon + 36 ESSM in Absalon / 16 Harpoon + 24 ESSM + 32 SM-2 in Iver Huitfeldt).
The 76mm guns can be replaced with 35mm CIWS, these are modular too. However the Danish Navy only owns about 4 CIWS StanFlex modules for all its ship, so they only put them on those ships on deployment while the other run around with 76mm in those slots.
Geez, that's some hardcore firepower. Do they build/train to fight anyone in particular, or is it mostly about NATO or EU deployments?
-
The difference being that unlike modern times, George III never had to worry about subsurface threats aside from Turtle and the odd hungry mermaid. Not sure I'd trust a prison hulk as secure, unless the water around it were clear and filled with enough active sonar to make a small dolphin explode, or Screaming Eels.
We had one in Portland Harbour (in Dorset) for a while. No prison can ever be 100% secure but I don't think this is all that much worse than a prison built on land. They are permanently moored rather than sailing a safe distance out to sea and it is more the ability to construct it in one place and then deliver it to another. It was moored at an old Royal Navy base where they used to test torpedoes and things so reasonably secure. Also Portland itself is connected to the mainland by only a narrow strip.
A lot of British prisons are or were castles or other fortifications - the one on Portland (The Verne) is and so was the other local prison here (Dorchester) as was York Castle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Prison_Weare
-
Geez, that's some hardcore firepower. Do they build/train to fight anyone in particular, or is it mostly about NATO or EU deployments?
They simply had a ton of those (in particular Harpoon) Stanflex modules left over from decommissioned missile boats - which were sold to other countries (Baltic Shield and Portugal) without these modules. So they basically designed their two new frigate-sized classes in such a way that they could fit all of those leftover modules.
In wartime they'd likely not fit them all to full capacity either, since some of these modules would instead be earmarked for upgrading their OPVs - older Thetis class and newer Knud Rasmussen class - into warfighters by adding a few missile modules (these OPVs usually have e.g. crane modules in these slots).
The standard that the two Absalons seem to run around with is still three ESSM (ea 12) and two Harpoon (ea 8) modules, and for the three Iver Huitfeldts two ESSM (ea 12) and two Harpoon (ea 8) modules (+ fixed VLS for SM-2). In practice they seem to not fit all the missiles in their launchers rather than not mounting the module itself. Often e.g. one of the two Harpoon modules is not loaded with missiles, just the empty launch gear.
-
I really like the Absaloms - they seem the perfect small solution to the problem of deploying a relatively cheap asset for operations-other-than outright war against an advanced opponent; in the event of a big shooty-war, they would probably have a good role as amphibious or HQ ships
-
Ditto. Forget all those TROs where the OmniMech/Tank configs are all some flavor or another of shooty - this is Omni done right! :)
-
Ditto. Forget all those TROs where the OmniMech/Tank configs are all some flavor or another of shooty - this is Omni done right! :)
Mmmm OmniWarShips [drool]
-
I know Italy was trying that kind of thing out in the late '80s - OTO/Melara was making weaponry that used the same sized barbette so that you could plug in and out easily, but I don't think it was nearly as versatile as what all this is. Impressive indeed!
-
According to the Wiki page the Iver Huitfeldt-class can mount gun modules in all slots. I don't know if it's correct, and I doubt it would be smart, but the idea of a half-dozen 3" rapid-fire guns has a certain appeal! :D
-
Good ghu...they need to do that at least once...and take pictures.
-
That... would be a pretty significant way to get rid of pirates.
Actually, that's probably the strongest gun broadside an active ship has, now that I think of it.
-
I know Italy was trying that kind of thing out in the late '80s - OTO/Melara was making weaponry that used the same sized barbette so that you could plug in and out easily, but I don't think it was nearly as versatile as what all this is. Impressive indeed!
The plug-in thing is relevant even if you always use the same kind of turret/weapon. On any MEKO ship for example if you need to replace the turret (or its loader underneath) due to damage/malfunction/etc you just pull it out using some crane on the pierside and plug in a new unit. Main difference to Stanflex is that you still need to basically install a deck cover around it or similar - that's also why Stanflex installations look a bit "unclean".
According to the Wiki page the Iver Huitfeldt-class can mount gun modules in all slots.
Technically all modules are compatible, i.e. all of them fit in the unified slot model. With the gun modules it doesn't make sense since the barrels would only clear the side of the tub if elevated to where they wouldn't really be useful.
(https://abload.de/img/dscf9747ohq13.jpg)
(https://abload.de/img/39e4d71d144bc3246079d9sr4t.jpg)
Note sides of tub that are about 2.5m tall. Also note covers on unused module positions. And the fact that the ESSM launchers are only half filled ;)
There are some other Stanflex modules that are not in use on the Absalons and Iver Huitfeldts for the same reason. Basically that's the VDS (deploying sonar doesn't make sense from the tub) and ASW (twin torpedo tube) modules as well as oceanography, survey and anti-pollution modules for the same reasons. I'm actually not sure there's any ships aside from the Flyvefisken that can take the VDS module - possibly the MSD/MRD drone ships. The Thetis class OPVs have crane modules installed either side of the hangar at flight deck level which can take e.g. the ASW modules (they have a VDS installed on the ship itself).
-
Looks like the US NAVY has changed it's mind again on the unmanned MQ-25 Stingray aerial tanker. They completely revamped it! (https://news.usni.org/2017/10/10/navy-releases-final-mq-25-stingray-rfp-general-atomics-bid-revealed)
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/unnamed-5-889x630.jpg)
It will help extend the aircraft carrier's reach but it's no longer a stealthy and hard to find. I think it makes it into a target with rather explosive climax. :o
-
It's time to say goodbye to both a good ship and the end of an era.
(http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/7/0/1/715107.jpg)
Peru's light cruiser Almirante Grau, the last of the gunships, retired at the end of September after several decades of service with both the Peruvian and Dutch navies. The eight six-inch guns have gone silent forever, and with their retiring the final major warship using guns as its primary weaponry is gone.
-
Sad. I guess they could not afford to upkeep her. I hope to god they don't scrap her.
-
Actually, that's probably the strongest gun broadside an active ship has, now that I think of it.
The heaviest broadside can be delivered by the Russian (3) and Chinese (4) Sovremenny class destroyers with their two twin 130mm guns, which if their autoloader works and burns through at full speed deliver 4,676 kg throw weight per minute.
The heaviest reliable broadside is that of the Italian Durand de la Penne destroyers at 2,848.00 kg (with a 127mm and two 76mm capable of firing to either broadside) owing to its high-RoF 76mm Super Rapid guns.
The Iver Huitfeldts if mounting 2x 76mm instead of CIWS (which they don't) in addition to their 127mm can deliver 2,271.36 kg per minute. Turkey also still operates two ex-German 1950s frigate tenders (with 2x 100mm + 2x 40mm) that can deliver 2,080.8 kg per minute and are probably the next best out there.
-
It's time to say goodbye to both a good ship and the end of an era.
*snip*
It's interesting that she should retire within a few weeks of the first ship to use a laser weapon being decommissioned (USS PONCE).
-
Looks like the US NAVY has changed it's mind again on the unmanned MQ-25 Stingray aerial tanker. They completely revamped it! (https://news.usni.org/2017/10/10/navy-releases-final-mq-25-stingray-rfp-general-atomics-bid-revealed)
*snip*
Well, at least one contractor has... there are three other versions out there that may look more like the original proposal...
-
It's interesting that she should retire within a few weeks of the first ship to use a laser weapon being decommissioned (USS PONCE).
*cough*
(https://abload.de/img/rheinmetall-german-arteoeo.jpg)
-
It's time to say goodbye to both a good ship and the end of an era.
The spirit of HMS Warrior nudges the spirit of HMS Dreadnought. "The children did well, didn't they?"
-
Dammit, you're gonna make me cry...
-
Arleigh Burke with its helos
-
I'm so old. My first thought was "since when did a Burke get helos?" Then I realized it's not the nineties anymore.
-
Russian Navy Buyan-class corvette firing Kalibr missile from the Caspian Sea
(https://s1.postimg.org/26x40363z3/l8mntcaccgsz.jpg)
Indian Navy Veer-class missile boat INS Pralaya, nice shot showing off its CIWS and SS-N-25 Switchblades, aka Harpoonskis
(https://s1.postimg.org/441hrkfxsv/indian-navy-osi-class.jpg)
Arleigh Burke with its helos
lovely ^-^
-
I'm so old. My first thought was "since when did a Burke get helos?" Then I realized it's not the nineties anymore.
I like the Burkes without the hangars to be honest. The additional hangars makes it bit less in my eyes even I know this expands it's capacities.
-
The Indian Veer corvette is a very angry patrol boat. 16 Anti Ship Missles, a 3in gun, and CIWS in the back. That's a big punch in such a small craft.
-
I'm so old. My first thought was "since when did a Burke get helos?" Then I realized it's not the nineties anymore.
An awful lot of what an ASW ship does is have a towed sonar array and a helicopter so with negligible to no loss of AAW capability the Arleigh Burkes can acquire that capability... but it does mean that calling them destroyers is even more ridiculous. They really should be reclassified as cruisers.
The Indian Veer corvette is a very angry patrol boat. 16 Anti Ship Missles, a 3in gun, and CIWS in the back. That's a big punch in such a small craft.
I like the CIWS being on the back so you fire your missiles and then run away, expecting return fire from that direction.
And here's a random ship photo - this time HMS Achilles (1907)
-
The Indian Veer corvette is a very angry patrol boat. 16 Anti Ship Missles, a 3in gun, and CIWS in the back. That's a big punch in such a small craft.
There's two AK-630 CIWS on the Veer
-
The spirit of HMS Warrior nudges the spirit of HMS Dreadnought. "The children did well, didn't they?"
Dreadnought replies "How the bloody hell should I know? I found ramming was more my style in the end anyway." ;D
-
The CIWS is a 30mm also, more firepower than the US CIWS.
I just remember when the US PT boats were out it was the most firepower in the smallest ship pound for pound. I wonder what ship holds that title now? That Veer has to be in the running.
-
The CIWS is a 30mm also, more firepower than the US CIWS.
I just remember when the US PT boats were out it was the most firepower in the smallest ship pound for pound. I wonder what ship holds that title now? That Veer has to be in the running.
The Veer's double CIWS is grand-looking and impressed me too, but loses out to the more modern Kashtan system IMHO.
The Veer would probably give the Greek Roussen class and Egyptian Ezzat class a run for their money, but IMHO the king of the small missile boat category goes to the Israeli Sa'ar-4.5 class, example INS Tarshish below.
(http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/5/9/4/1266495.jpg)
The Sa'ar 4.5 carries a 76mm gun, Phalanx CIWS, 16 Barak-1 SAMs, 8 Harpoon AShM and sometimes ASW torpedo tubes too, but I vote her mainly because of her dazzling array of ECM systems, possibly the most on any ship of any size currently in service. A matter of quality over quantity...
...but if raw throw weight is what one desires, the Taiwanese Tuo Chiang class is no slouch either with 16 antiship missiles and a very intriguing structure to boot.
(https://s1.postimg.org/3myo6g8ge7/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
The above ship will carry even more weaponry in the follow-on vessel of the class as they will also be armed with a SAM launcher
-
The above ship will carry even more weaponry in the follow-on vessel of the class as they will also be armed with a SAM launcher
The Tuo Chiang-class? No, they will replace the 8 HF-2 antiship missiles with the SAMs, leaving her with 8 antiship missiles and dunno-how-many SAMs.
-
I just remember when the US PT boats were out it was the most firepower in the smallest ship pound for pound. I wonder what ship holds that title now? That Veer has to be in the running.
Depends on what that firepower is supposed to be good for.
For a mission somewhat in line with PT Boats? Romanian Smardan / Brutar-II class river monitors. 322 tons and 44m length. Carrying a tank turret from a TR-85 MBT (100mm), one twin 30mm AA turret (dunno where that's from), two ZPU-4 anti-aircraft guns (ea quad 14.5mm), two twin MG turrets from TAB-77 APC (ea 14.5mm + 7.62mm) and two Grad MLRS (ea 40 122mm rockets).
-
Romanian Smardan / Brutar-II class river monitors. 322 tons and 44m length. Carrying a tank turret from a TR-85 MBT (100mm), one twin 30mm AA turret (dunno where that's from), two ZPU-4 anti-aircraft guns (ea quad 14.5mm), two twin MG turrets from TAB-77 APC (ea 14.5mm + 7.62mm) and two Grad MLRS (ea 40 122mm rockets).
(https://s1.postimg.org/6flr85ovwv/5563319861_030f72dd9e_b.jpg)
-
If you look really REALLY closely, you might find a patch of deck that doesn't already have a gun sitting on it.
-
Depends on what that firepower is supposed to be good for.
For a mission somewhat in line with PT Boats? Romanian Smardan / Brutar-II class river monitors. 322 tons and 44m length. Carrying a tank turret from a TR-85 MBT (100mm), one twin 30mm AA turret (dunno where that's from), two ZPU-4 anti-aircraft guns (ea quad 14.5mm), two twin MG turrets from TAB-77 APC (ea 14.5mm + 7.62mm) and two Grad MLRS (ea 40 122mm rockets).
Hmm, are you sure it is really a boat, and not a bunch of tanks and APC's welded together with an Evenrude-ski out back?
-
If you look really REALLY closely, you might find a patch of deck that doesn't already have a gun sitting on it.
And then that patch is either:
- the one where they used to mount the four extra .50cal MGs that aren't carried anymore.
- the hatches into which the MLRS can be retracted for reloading under armour.
- or the rails for naval mines that run from the MLRS positions all the way to the stern of the boat...
-
I'd nominate the Kogalniceanu river monitor; adds a second tank turret aft as well as two twin 30mm AA mounts on top combined with the two quad 14.5mm mounts just aft of the A turret, and still loads two 40-shot 122mm launchers. Plus whatever AA missiles the crew brings along, and I'm sure there's a few single belt-feds stored aboard just in case you run out of ammo for everything else.
-
Yeah, but that comes at the cost of 570 tons weight. I wouldn't rate the extra armament being worth the 77% more weight.
-
Accuracy is more important with those River monitors. Do they have fire controls that are meant to handle being on the water. I know it's not as bad say coast vs semi-calm river.
-
It's time to say goodbye to both a good ship and the end of an era.
(http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/7/0/1/715107.jpg)
Peru's light cruiser Almirante Grau, the last of the gunships, retired at the end of September after several decades of service with both the Peruvian and Dutch navies. The eight six-inch guns have gone silent forever, and with their retiring the final major warship using guns as its primary weaponry is gone.
This means we're down to only two nations that field cruiser class vessels, and one of them, the US, is planning to reduce our cruiser fleet by half over the next five years.
-
We're building destroyers today that mass more than WWI Cruisers
-
I suspect there's some "treaty compliance" going on there...
-
We're building destroyers today that mass more than WWI Cruisers
In point of fact, a Zumwalt-class destroyer displaces as much as (or more than) a pre-dreadnought battleship of various classes...and almost as much as some early model battlecruisers or smaller dreadnought battleships, such as the Spanish España-class...
The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (especially later models) almost displaces as much as an early pre-dreadnought battleship...
Ruger
-
An awful lot of what an ASW ship does is have a towed sonar array and a helicopter so with negligible to no loss of AAW capability the Arleigh Burkes can acquire that capability... but it does mean that calling them destroyers is even more ridiculous. They really should be reclassified as cruisers.
That is potentially the least accurate statement you could possibly make regarding an ASW platform. There is so much more that goes into ASW that I don't even know where to start. ASW ships must behave in a certain way, when under threat, that is, AAW ships also have to work a certain way while countering their primary threats. The two are not compatible at all, they are literally at extreme ends of the spectrum.
Conducting ASW on an Arleigh Burke ruins it's AAW capability, countering an AAW threat means it couldn't find a sea mount, let alone a submarine. Admittedly the USN doesn't really run any dedicated ASW platforms any more, so I guess they are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but giving an AAW platform the tools of an ASW platform does not mean it can do both, nor does it reduce the over all number of ships required, all it means is that you can have two of the same class conducting two very different roles in the task group. Even with this though, ASW platforms really need to be designed from the keel up to undertake ASW effectively, submarines just have too many advantages. The Arleigh Burkes are just all wrong for the mission, good training and excellent crews can mitigate some of the disadvantage, but not all of it.
Anyway, enough ranting. Here's another wonderful lady, HMS Hood:
-
The USN has a superior ASW platform to the Burke anyhow. LA 688i Subs and the Virginia class (and the two Seawolfs)
-
The USN has a superior ASW platform to the Burke anyhow. LA 688i Subs and the Virginia class (and the two Seawolfs)
two Seawolfs? What happen to the third one??? Jimmy Carter slightly modded but she still counts as a unit in the Class.
-
two Seawolfs? What happen to the third one??? Jimmy Carter slightly modded but she still counts as a unit in the Class.
Yes but the Navy's official spy boat won't be doing ASW now would she.
-
Yes but the Navy's official spy boat won't be doing ASW now would she.
You'd be amazed. I'd have trouble thinking of a better boat to properly gather intel on a new SSBN and its missile tests, for example. ;)
-
You'd be amazed. I'd have trouble thinking of a better boat to properly gather intel on a new SSBN and its missile tests, for example. ;)
Perhaps, though I think the other boats are capable of doing that... up until a misplaced Jock aboard said SSBN says "Engage the caterpillar drive!" ;D
On that note. USS Texas entering a degaussing facility.
(https://s1.postimg.org/3fityrmjlr/IPa4_LXw.jpg)
And a stunning photograph of USS... I'll let the experts have the fun of solving this ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/8Ii69LT.jpg)
-
That was easy. USS North Carolina (bow shape and funnel number is distinctive). Looks like very early in the war, due to lack of the hordes of Oerlikons and Bofors she was covered in later. Great shot of her!
Actually, now that I look, I don't see any 1.1-inch mounts either, must have already been removed due to being pieces of crap. (The mounts for two of them are faintly visible on each side just abaft of #2 gun mount, roughly abeam the conning tower)
-
Let's try one of my own.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R17811%2C_Linienschiff_%22Bayern%22.jpg)
-
Well, I was able to recognize it was German and WWI vintage before cheating... :)
I didn't know they stuck with the same turret style through both wars.
-
Almost carbon copies, in fact. Remember that from the end of the war up through to the late 1930s, Germany wasn't allowed to look into naval weapons larger than 11-inch. So when the Bismarck was started, it was either go with the modern 11-inch guns the Scharnhorst used (ye gods, no!) or go with the same style 15-inch used on Baden. So the Germans went with the old-style guns (which, being Krupp, were very high-quality and had the penetrating power of the British 16-inchers on the Nelson!), and started research into a larger 16-inch gun for the 'H'-class ships instead.
Something neat, in fact- much of Baden is copied onto the Bismarck when you break out the blueprints. If it ain't broke, don't fix it- Baden was a damned good ship, and the bigger, 20-year-later version didn't need to be too different in form (though obviously gaining 20,000 tons and two decades allowed for much higher speeds and thicker armor).
-
My turn!
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5063/5614127280_75bb9f27a6_b.jpg)
And the 1.1 inch mount wasn't THAT bad, sure its bad when you compair it to the 40mm bofors but then again so's everything. It was superior to the IJN's 25mm gun and the German 37mm (which had to be singally loaded :s )
-
Is that HMS Tiger?
-
Definitely one of her class, if not Tiger herself it's a sister ship. That weird 'I wanna be a carrier but don't quite know how' stern shape is distinctive as hell.
-
Bingo :) It the Tiger :)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/09c05e099e81c57a9354465389235183/tumblr_oy6majfCrt1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The French Protected Cruiser Cassar.
Also I found this rather fascinating study about the Battleship Bouvet and her capsizing of the Dardneles after hitting a mine. What stood out is that she capsized between 40 - 50 seconds and some researchers wanted to know why she sunk so fast.
And they found out.
http://www.shipstab.org/files/Proceedings/ISSW/ISSW_2014_Kuala_Lumpur_Malaysia/Papers/ISSW_2014_s3-p05.pdf
-
Er....did they give a conclusion statement?
-
Er....did they give a conclusion statement?
TLDR - Bouvets designers flubbed their maths and made sweeping assumptions. The speed of the capsize was also aided by the sharp sweep of her excessive tumblehome, as she listed, there was less ship pushing against the water and thus less boyancy. Basically she was a death trap from the day she was launched.
-
Cassar looks like more a armed yacht than warship. ;D
-
I just finished reading the article. The English was... interesting... then I realised most of the authors were French.
Basically, the ship had bulkheads in the wrong places - they had them running the length of the ship but not enough across so the water all stayed on one side.
I'm not too clear on the design doctrine of the French pre-dreadnoughts, but all of the pre-dreadnoughts shared a feature that they generally had no more than 4 main guns, hence the ships look under-armed to our eyes and Dreadnought being so revolutionary by having 10 main guns.
I'm not sure about the damage control/prevention provision of Dreadnought and the other early ships like her but I suspect that there was some knowledge about the flaws in the underwater protections as so many of the pre-dreadnoughts were fitted with rams. There was a nasty incident with HMS Victoria in 1893.
Wikipedia link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victoria_(1887) and photo below
-
I came across on less unfortunate submarines of the J-Class Submarines, the HMS J7 later knowns as HMAS J7.
She was a World War I commissioned Submarine that came into service later part of war in 1917.
During the war, she missed a lot opportunities to sink German vessels.'
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/styles/content_image_full_width_no_sidebar/public/J7.jpg?itok=1tTP8iwg)
After the war, six survivors of her class were transferred to the Australian Admiralty.
Prior to the transfer, a sister ship was sunk by accident its OWN navy...
While in service of Her Royal Highness's Australian Navy and eventually she was retired from service due to high maintenance and multiple failures to increase accommodations on board the ship by getting rid of some of it's tubes. She was towed from Flinders Naval Depot, Crib Point, where she had served as a reserve source of electric power, on 4 December 1929.
However year later she was dismantled and sunk as a breakwater Sandringham Yacht Club, Sandringham, Port Phillip Bay, where she surprisingly remains to this day.
Lordy, i'm surrpise the environmental people didn't get on yacht yard's ownership about this thing.
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/styles/content_image_full_width_no_sidebar/public/HMAS_J7_Submarine_Sandringham_Yacht_Club_600_1662.JPG?itok=CtV4rNZu)
-
but all of the pre-dreadnoughts shared a feature that they generally had no more than 4 main guns, hence the ships look under-armed to our eyes and Dreadnought being so revolutionary by having 10 main guns.
Up until the late 1890s, naval battles were going to take place at around 2000-3000 yard ranges - very Napoleonic. Guns had poor accuracy and little fire control, and big guns took forever to reload. So you layer caked - some big guns, some medium guns, and some smaller guns, and just fired everything in the hope something hit.
Clever navies saw the importance of gunlaying, accuracy, and centralising fire control. Tsushima happened because the Japanese were paying attention to this in advance of actually having a battle, and the value of the middle-sized guns dropped dramatically.
-
The Australia is building up a nice advanced navy, in a short time. Good for them!
-
I suspect there's some "treaty compliance" going on there...
Somewhere, somebody along the way decided "destroyers" were less offensive than "cruisers". That seems to be one of the main driving forces behind everyone terming their latest ships destroyers, despite evidence to the contrary. I suspect it goes back to a time when destroyers really were significantly smaller than cruisers.
One thing that is different in the USN system, though, is that someone somewhere along the way decided USN cruisers were air defense first, other roles after, and that they had flag berths. As I recall, none of the Burke class have flag berths at all.
-
I've been very disappointed in the US Navy's developments of new ships. It just hodge podge of designs that were thown up by Admirals who suddenly aren't around anymore to refine what they want. SSN-21, DDG-1000, LCS were all part of some sort of new fleet concepts.
Due to budget problem, focus changes, nothing is getting made that's "New" except for some minor changes to existing designs.
While the rest of the world continues to make better designs while they know our designs inside-and-out. Burke basic design is used world wide now, South Korea, Japan, while AEGIS is uses Europe, Australia, etc. Still great designs and equipment, but time marches on.
We still can't kick out something new like a completely new cruiser/destroyer that can carry more than 100 tubes for the VLS.
I wish Navy would get a plan concept and stick with it. There would been a Cruiser sized vessel, mid-size frigate size and utility small warship that did odd jobs. The LCS was only part of it that survived, but its differs from what it was suppose to be it. LCS doesn't work partially because it was part 3-part ship plan.
-
SSN-21 was a little bit different of a situation. It was started during the Cold War, designed as the best of the best to face off against the Soviets. After the Soviet Union fell, it was decided that the Navy could get 90% of the advanced tech at 75% of the cost in the Virginia Class (rough percentages to illustrate the point), well saving money & getting more subs was deemed worth it in an era without a top tier opponent with similar capabilities.
-
Also the Seawolf's were absurdly expensive, even by budgets of the time, and even though the PLAN is growing in strength and capabilities, they would still be in a LOT of trouble against 688i LA's.
-
Also the Seawolf's were absurdly expensive, even by budgets of the time, and even though the PLAN is growing in strength and capabilities, they would still be in a LOT of trouble against 688i LA's.
To be fair, the costs look higher since only three boats ended up completed, so the R&D costs are only split three ways instead of, oh, 40 or so the way it had been planned. But yeah, those were as deadly to the Navy's wallet as they are to enemy subs, no matter how you slice it. VERY good subs, probably the best on the water today even now, but no way in a post-Cold War world they were feasible.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/fad90a95b2dbb48c9140a125e76e0780/tumblr_oyc4sqh0Yo1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The Italian King aboard the battleship Littorio.
-
Self, do not photoshop a giggling jerk pilot in a Fairey Swordfish in the background of the skies of that picture.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/c32bebe59b03bc5f69c78c0395193cfc/tumblr_oyc0pzqnO81rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The rotating section of the turret of MN Jean Bart
-
...Still great designs and equipment, but time marches on...
This is a little bit unfair. While the basic hull and general types of systems are the similar to what the Burkes and Ticos started out as, they have been almost constantly updated. The radar and electronic systems are far more advanced on the most current baselines than the original ships. So, while the hull might be the same, a new Burke built today has greatly improved technology to the first one that was launched.
For example, there USS Fitzgerald was not originally slated to get upgraded to the most current Aegis baseline, then it got nailed by a cargo ship and is going to require replacement of significant parts of it's Aegis hardware. The Navy was looking into whether it made sense to upgrade it now since they were going to have to buy new hardware anyway. They decided that no, it did not. It was going to be something like an extra $100 million to upgrade to the latest Aegis baseline compared to just replacing what was broken.
The point being, even if you built a new, clean-sheet ship, you might still put the current version of Aegis on it...because the current version still IS cutting edge.
And speaking of Fitzgerald...yeah...gonna need a couple new radar panels, to say the least.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--HYfevEsa--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/rpzbk6baj90rcxc8tdzk.jpg)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqWdwryUkGW4IZAuGPBaAoOr30lVRHJC-KEryIWt1fISBvsXw5)
What ship is this? WWI sub, just no name...
TT
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqWdwryUkGW4IZAuGPBaAoOr30lVRHJC-KEryIWt1fISBvsXw5)
What ship is this? WWI sub, just no name...
TT
The long 'spine' extended from the main sail makes me think its' a British K-class boat, but that's only a guess. The perspective makes it hard to get a good look at it to be sure. Size fits about right though.
-
I think its an X-Craft.
-
Meanwhile, U.S.S. McCain is in even worse shape.
https://news.usni.org/2017/10/21/destroyer-mccain-developed-crack-in-hull-while-on-heavy-lift-transport-vessel-being-rerouted-to-philippines-for-inspection (https://news.usni.org/2017/10/21/destroyer-mccain-developed-crack-in-hull-while-on-heavy-lift-transport-vessel-being-rerouted-to-philippines-for-inspection)
Four inch crack in the hull, starboard side amidships. It was noticed when she was floated; I'm guessing it's from the ship settling on the hard deck of the transport after the collision - stressed members bent out of shape, forced back into a semblance of their original and 'doink' went the hull.
Fortunately it's not major but it means there could be a lot more hidden damage or stuff that is just about to let go. As it is, she's returning/returned to Yokosuka for repairs there; it's serious but most of the major electrical and really expensive stuff survived without damage. Fitzgerald took it right in the radar and destroyed the set, apparently, so it's coming back to the US by transport. Huntington Ingalls will do her repairs in Pascagoula, and she's moved her homeport there effective 12/15.
-
Second google image for me is that exact image. The follow up images also seem to corroborate.
The long 'spine' extended from the main sail makes me think its' a British K-class boat, but that's only a guess. The perspective makes it hard to get a good look at it to be sure. Size fits about right though.
-
I think its an X-Craft.
Waaaay too big to be an X-craft. The camera distance distorts the size compared to the men standing next to it, but they'd have to be a thousand feet away from the boat for that to work still. X-craft were absurdly small. (And somehow had room for crew, limpet mines, fuel, and the crew's clanking brass ones.)
-
Firing HIMARS from the deck of San Antonio-class LPD USS Anchorage.
(https://s1.postimg.org/4ywtfuxpnz/171022-_N-_TU910-003.jpg)
Meanwhile, U.S.S. McCain is in even worse shape.
FYI mate, it seems that if you hotlink images from USNI, we can only see them once we've copied the URL and visited the page itself.
View from the front.
(https://s1.postimg.org/46jxy4goi7/w_Bg_MZq5qc-_A.jpg)
-
View from the front.
Wounded soldier getting a fireman lift back to friendly lines..
-
HMS Scylla, a Dido-class light cruiser
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/HMS_Scylla_1942_IWM_FL_2932.jpg)
HMS Charybdis
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/HMS_Charybdis_1943_IWM_FL_5201.jpg)
-
USS Worcester CL-144, anti-aircraft gun cruiser.
(https://i.imgur.com/apIBIUM.jpg)
This image from Koren War, which was a rare video of the ship at sea but image all is left of the vid since it was taken down.
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=42491)
-
FYI mate, it seems that if you hotlink images from USNI, we can only see them once we've copied the URL and visited the page itself.
Fixed with a link to the story itself, at least THAT should load the image! :D
-
The long 'spine' extended from the main sail makes me think its' a British K-class boat, but that's only a guess. The perspective makes it hard to get a good look at it to be sure. Size fits about right though.
A google image search say you're right. In this case it's HMS K4 (what a name). And that image pops up on the wiki page for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_K4
From that page, the K4 was commissioned January 1, 1917. The image is from sometime in January 1917 when K4 ran aground on Walney Island and remained stranded there "for some time." Then during maneuvers in November of that year, A cruiser that was part of the fleet maneuvers made a sharp turn to avoid hitting 3 other surface ships which caused K4 to collide with K1 badly enough that K1 needed to be evacuated and sunk by a Brit cruiser that was part of the maneuvers.
On January 31 1918, during nighttime fleet training, K4 turned to avoid hitting K3 and in turn was hit by K6 and K7 and was lots with all hands.
-
Ahh the K class, interesting idea...but everything that pretty much could go wrong, did.
-
And speaking of Fitzgerald...yeah...gonna need a couple new radar panels, to say the least.
Meanwhile, U.S.S. McCain is in even worse shape.
Rest well brothers, fair winds and following seas. :'(
Now enough maudlin behaviour... On to a golden oldie! Note the flying bridge, then think: This class of ship was designed by the Brittish to ply the North Atlantic!
I give you the Daring Class Destroyer
It pains me to see such beautiful ladies and their crew suffer.
-
For those of us whose naval-fu is still weak, what's a flying bridge, and why is it bad in the North Pond?
-
For those of us whose naval-fu is still weak, what's a flying bridge, and why is it bad in the North Pond?
Isn't it essentially an open bridge, rather than an enclosed one?
Wiki says: A flying bridge is an open area on top of a surface ship which provides unobstructed views of the fore, aft, and the sides of a vessel, and which serves as an operating station for the ship's officers, such as the captain or officer of the watch.
-
Well, that explains why you don't want one on the North Atlantic. Yikes.
Humans put shelter on the survival necessities list for a reason, folks.
-
Well, that explains why you don't want one on the North Atlantic. Yikes.
Pretty much all WW2 ships running on the North Atlantic had flying bridges. These were more of a lookout position; steering, signalling etc was done one level below.
Usually you did also have part of the flying bridge enclosed, e.g. on US Fletchers in the rangefinder house up there; on British Flower class corvettes you had a lookout housing and for the flying bridge itself depending on weather e.g. a canvas cover above (common in South Sea usage to protect against the sun). You can find similar flying bridge layouts with small deck houses and a larger open area on pretty much every wartime ship, even Liberty cargo ships.
Most ships built like that in wartime later received redesigned bridges in the early 50s. USN Fletchers for example received a aluminium cover over the entire flying bridge.
-
Part of the reasoning was air attacks. Pre-war ships that had enclosed bridges actually had the roofs removed so that it was easier to spot dive-bombers (and later kamikaze planes) easier. When the war ended, planes had reached a point where neither of those jobs was really in-vogue anymore. Jets were faster than lookouts could react to easily, and radar meant that they weren't really needed anyway. Missiles meant planes were firing from far enough out (and the ship firing BACK in turn) far enough away that having an open sky didn't really do any good either. So, cover it back up and let the bridge crew have some heat and dry air at least.
Even by the end of the war a shift was being made in larger ships towards going back to enclosed bridges- note that while the South Dakotas were all completed with open bridges around their conning towers, Massachusetts eventually enclosed hers (and remains so today). Same for Iowa- her sisters all were completed with enclosed bridges, even (New Jersey with an elegant rounded version, the other two with the squared version the retain today- the first two ships were eventually fitted with the same style)
Want the ones that really would have sucked? This is HMS Sheffield's open bridge during operations in the Arctic winter. The Atlantic? Bad weather. This? This is hell, literally frozen over. That air is VERY far below freezing, so any spray freezes immediately to what it hits- metal or flesh.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a0/ee/d8/a0eed8ec08a7275a2dfeb8ae901f81cf.jpg)
-
Want the ones that really would have sucked? This is HMS Sheffield's open bridge during operations in the Arctic winter. The Atlantic? Bad weather. This? This is hell, literally frozen over. That air is VERY far below freezing, so any spray freezes immediately to what it hits- metal or flesh.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a0/ee/d8/a0eed8ec08a7275a2dfeb8ae901f81cf.jpg)
Nyooooope! Nope, nope, nope!
-
There's a reason why naval greatcoats are traditional large and heavy. As are naval beards ...
-
I would LOVE a greatcoat. Or anything that covered my arms, torso, AND legs.
-
I would LOVE a greatcoat. Or anything that covered my arms, torso, AND legs.
(https://www.mysnuggiestore.com/content/images/thumbs/0001304_snuggie-blanket-blue-plaid.jpeg)
...what? It meets your requirements!
-
(http://www.royal-navy.org/sites/default/files/styles/juicebox_medium/public/WarshipsPics/HMS%20Glowworm%20sinking.jpg?itok=fiJMrW1n)
What you see here is the one of the last photos ever taken of one of history's bravest warship crews. HMS Glowworm. During the German invasion of Norway in spring of 1940, Glowworm had been in the company of the battlecruiser Renown, but detached to rescue a missing seaman. Attempting to find Renown again in a gale, she found a large warship... just not the one she wanted to find. Instead, the 1800-ton Glowworm had found the 16,000 ton cruiser Admiral Hipper. The weather was far too rough for a torpedo attack, and one could understand if the Glowworm's captain simply made a run for it and tried to escape the hulking cruiser.
He didn't. He attacked instead.
Despite the rough seas a torpedo attack was attempted (it failed). The 4.7-inch guns didn't have the power to cause any real damage to the Hipper, and even the attempted smokescreen (seen above) failed to do much- the wind kept whipping it away too fast to really obscure the destroyer anyway. (Unbeknownst to the British, Hipper had just received a new radar system, so the smoke would have merely been an annoyance anyway) Only one weapon remained... ramming. Speed to flank, and slam into the Hipper, and hope that the Glowworm's sacrifice takes the cruiser with her- or at least hurts her bad enough to send her home for a long time.
(http://www.rimnds.com/mag/sysimg/ueditor//20160705/1467708108078005900.jpg)
Glowworm didn't catch her target the way she wanted, only striking a glancing blow, and sank very soon after as a result of repeated hits from 208 and 88 mm shell hits. A sad few survivors were rescued, and Hipper was forced to withdraw for repairs. One of history's great mismatches in naval warfare ended up being a strategic win for a hapless but incredibly brave British destroyer crew.
(http://www.worldnavalships.com/images/hmsglowworm4.jpg)
-
I still think that World of Warships should have made the British destroyer HMS Glowworm
British commanders tended to value the view from an open bridge over protection up to and including battleships in the pre-control centre era
-
...what? It meets your requirements!
Already got one. Mine's lavender. O0
-
The other key use for the flying bridge is during docking, or similar close evolutions. The ability to walk out to the edge & see where the ship is, is very handy. Even floating office blocks have'em, except now they're enclosed so the bridge crew's hair doesn't get mussed ;)
(https://cruisedeals.expert/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Mariner_of_the_Seas-1024x877.jpg?x23407)
-
That was, oddly, one of the early findings of the LCS program. The first couple didn’t have bridge wings to help with their sleek, low-observable profile. Turns out, it made normal operations a huge pain, so the Navy actually started adding the, on starting around LCS-5 or 6. They had to add the, to both classes, as neither one had them. I can’t find a really good picture of the difference, but you can sort of see it in this picture of the independence class:
(http://www.mspfound.com/images/independance-class-1.jpg)
-
Nyooooope! Nope, nope, nope!
How about this then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebrP1IfiEto
-
How about this then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebrP1IfiEto
Everyone wants the glory of being a submariner until it's actually time to do submarine stuff.
-
That was, oddly, one of the early findings of the LCS program. The first couple didn’t have bridge wings to help with their sleek, low-observable profile. Turns out, it made normal operations a huge pain, so the Navy actually started adding the, on starting around LCS-5 or 6. They had to add the, to both classes, as neither one had them. I can’t find a really good picture of the difference, but you can sort of see it in this picture of the independence class:
I've looked at images up to LCS-14, USS Manchester. None of the bridges of those ships have bridge wings as far as the Independence Class goes.
However, the Freedom Class apparently started getting them.
USS Billings LCS-15, which was launched in July 2017.
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/billingsgazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/6/64/66447ff3-8aa4-572c-bb76-8c50f9dee05c/5957e910d75eb.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C818)
Her sister ship, USS Omaha LCS-13 has them as well. Though they do look odd to me in the picture.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/The_13th_littoral_combat_ship%2C_the_future_USS_Wichita_%28LCS_13%29_launches_sideways_%2829725271776%29.jpg)
-
Cruise ships have to get into tight spaces with little or no help from a tug. On my cruise the ship backed it self out and turned with no assistance and we were barely moving. This was on the 225k tonnage Oasis of the Seas. Some of the parts where they dock, are tight fits.
-
Pretty much all WW2 ships running on the North Atlantic had flying bridges. These were more of a lookout position; steering, signalling etc was done one level below.
Usually you did also have part of the flying bridge enclosed, e.g. on US Fletchers in the rangefinder house up there; on British Flower class corvettes you had a lookout housing and for the flying bridge itself depending on weather e.g. a canvas cover above (common in South Sea usage to protect against the sun). You can find similar flying bridge layouts with small deck houses and a larger open area on pretty much every wartime ship, even Liberty cargo ships.
Most ships built like that in wartime later received redesigned bridges in the early 50s. USN Fletchers for example received a aluminium cover over the entire flying bridge.
The Daring Class did get refit with a full bridge and gunnery direction platform, but flying bridges made good value up top. There are very few experiences better than being on the upper decks while you are cruising through the tropics, especially on a moonless night, where the stars are so close you feel like you can touch them. I'm getting land sick again. :-P
That was, oddly, one of the early findings of the LCS program. The first couple didn’t have bridge wings to help with their sleek, low-observable profile. Turns out, it made normal operations a huge pain, so the Navy actually started adding the, on starting around LCS-5 or 6. They had to add the, to both classes, as neither one had them. I can’t find a really good picture of the difference, but you can sort of see it in this picture of the independence class:
(http://www.mspfound.com/images/independance-class-1.jpg)
Strikes me you could just put a 10MC mic on the waist and use that as the berthing conning station...
-
On January 31 1918, during nighttime fleet training, K4 turned to avoid hitting K3 and in turn was hit by K6 and K7 and was lots with all hands.
The infamous Battle of May Island
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_May_Island
The casualty numbers for the "Battle of May Island" were 104. This includes men from K4 with 55 dead, K17 with 47 dead, and 2 dead from K14
-
(http://www.royal-navy.org/sites/default/files/styles/juicebox_medium/public/WarshipsPics/HMS%20Glowworm%20sinking.jpg?itok=fiJMrW1n)
What you see here is the one of the last photos ever taken of one of history's bravest warship crews. HMS Glowworm. During the German invasion of Norway in spring of 1940, Glowworm had been in the company of the battlecruiser Renown, but detached to rescue a missing seaman. Attempting to find Renown again in a gale, she found a large warship... just not the one she wanted to find. Instead, the 1800-ton Glowworm had found the 16,000 ton cruiser Admiral Hipper. The weather was far too rough for a torpedo attack, and one could understand if the Glowworm's captain simply made a run for it and tried to escape the hulking cruiser.
He didn't. He attacked instead.
Despite the rough seas a torpedo attack was attempted (it failed). The 4.7-inch guns didn't have the power to cause any real damage to the Hipper, and even the attempted smokescreen (seen above) failed to do much- the wind kept whipping it away too fast to really obscure the destroyer anyway. (Unbeknownst to the British, Hipper had just received a new radar system, so the smoke would have merely been an annoyance anyway) Only one weapon remained... ramming. Speed to flank, and slam into the Hipper, and hope that the Glowworm's sacrifice takes the cruiser with her- or at least hurts her bad enough to send her home for a long time.
(http://www.rimnds.com/mag/sysimg/ueditor//20160705/1467708108078005900.jpg)
Glowworm didn't catch her target the way she wanted, only striking a glancing blow, and sank very soon after as a result of repeated hits from 208 and 88 mm shell hits. A sad few survivors were rescued, and Hipper was forced to withdraw for repairs. One of history's great mismatches in naval warfare ended up being a strategic win for a hapless but incredibly brave British destroyer crew.
(http://www.worldnavalships.com/images/hmsglowworm4.jpg)
In a similar vein I give you HMS Acasta and Ardent:
On the way through the Norwegian Sea the funnel smoke from Glorious and her two escorting destroyers, Acasta and Ardent, was spotted by the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Scharnhorst opened fire on Ardent at a range of 16,000 yards (15,000 m), causing the destroyer to withdraw, firing torpedoes and making a smoke screen. Ardent scored one hit with her 4.7-inch guns on Scharnhorst but was hit several times by the German ships' secondary armament and sank. Scharnhorst switched her fire to Glorious and scored her first hit on her third salvo, at a range of 26,000 yards. A second shell hit the homing beacon above the bridge and killed or wounded the captain and most of the personnel stationed there. Ardent's smokescreen became effective enough to impair the visibility of the Germans so they ceased fire on Glorious. Glorious was hit again in the centre engine room and this caused her to lose speed and commence a slow circle to port. She also developed a list to starboard. The German ships closed to within 16,000 yards and continued to fire sinking Glorious. As the German ships approached Glorious, Acasta, which had been trying to maintain the smokescreen, broke through her own smoke and fired two volleys of torpedoes at Scharnhorst. One of these hit abreast her rear turret and badly damaged her. Acasta also managed one hit from her 4.7-inch guns on Scharnhorst, but was riddled by German gunfire and sank.
Survivors estimated that about 900 men abandoned Glorious. The Germans did not try to pick up survivors. The Royal Navy knew nothing of the sinking until it was announced on German radio. The Norwegian ship Borgund, on passage to the Faroe Islands, arrived late on 10 June and picked up survivors, eventually delivering 37 alive to Thorshavn of whom two later died. Another Norwegian ship, Svalbard II, also making for the Faeroes, picked up five survivors but was sighted by a German aircraft and forced to return to Norway, where the four still alive became prisoners of war for the next five years. It is also believed that one more survivor from Glorious was rescued by a German seaplane. Therefore, the total of survivors was 40, including one each from Acasta and Ardent. The total killed or missing was 1,207 from Glorious, 160 from Acasta and 152 from Ardent, a total of 1,519.
-
I've looked at images up to LCS-14, USS Manchester. None of the bridges of those ships have bridge wings as far as the Independence Class goes.
Well, they built at least one set as a retrofit. Here They are on Independence herself (found a better pic than my first one.)
(http://navaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/LCS-Fit-for-Duty-Ready-for-Action.jpg)
Either they decided they weren't any better, or they don't like how v1.0 turned out on Independence and are doing a re-design, because the navy had signed a contract modification to add them to -6 and -8, but apparently that didn't happen.
-
After 5 months lost at sea, 2 women and their dogs were rescued in the Pacific by the crew of the USS Ashland LSD-48. (https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2017/10/27/two-women-were-lost-at-sea-for-5-months-but-at-least-they-had-their-dogs)Huzzah to them and the fishing boat that rescued them!
Thank god they stashed a year worth of food! Survived storms and swarms of sharks!
-
After 5 months lost at sea, 2 women and their dogs were rescued in the Pacific by the crew of the USS Ashland LSD-48. (https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2017/10/27/two-women-were-lost-at-sea-for-5-months-but-at-least-they-had-their-dogs)Huzzah to them and the fishing boat that rescued them!
Thank god they stashed a year worth of food! Survive storms and swarms of sharks!
Back in May/June of 2003, I was the Commanding Officer of Troops on ASH. Good times. She was also my ride home from my first deployment.
-
Back in May/June of 2003, I was the Commanding Officer of Troops on ASH. Good times. She was also my ride home from my first deployment.
I never got the opportunity to be on a GatorFreighter. I was told those ships were tight quarters as not alot elbow room onboard. Is that true?
-
I think that's true of an Navy vessel. It's all about maximum use of interior space.
-
After 5 months lost at sea, 2 women and their dogs were rescued in the Pacific by the crew of the USS Ashland LSD-48. (https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2017/10/27/two-women-were-lost-at-sea-for-5-months-but-at-least-they-had-their-dogs)Huzzah to them and the fishing boat that rescued them!
Thank god they stashed a year worth of food! Survived storms and swarms of sharks!
They stashed a bit less than 6 months' worth of food it seems. This is Hollywood material, I'd pay admission price for that any day of the week!
-
That article plays up the danger higher than some of the other news reports I've seen. Among other things, other articles stated that they had close to a year's worth of food onboard.
Also:
One night, a group of tiger sharks began attacking the vessel, and the next morning, a shark returned and rammed the boat again, Appel said, adding, ‘‘We were just incredibly lucky that our hull was strong enough to withstand the onslaught.’’
No, this is ridiculous. Tiger sharks do not represent a threat to a 50 foot sailboat unless it's already starting to sink. They'll bump, sure, but that's what they do when the find something and they don't know what it is. They weren't in a life raft, the sharks weren't a danger even if it might have seemed scary at the time.
-
They had consumed 90% of the food by the time they were rescued. this was confused with the comments that they brought food which could last for 1 year referring to it's perishability
It's a cute story anyway. Kid friendly fodder, methinks.
-
That article plays up the danger higher than some of the other news reports I've seen. Among other things, other articles stated that they had close to a year's worth of food onboard.
Also:
No, this is ridiculous. Tiger sharks do not represent a threat to a 50 foot sailboat unless it's already starting to sink. They'll bump, sure, but that's what they do when the find something and they don't know what it is. They weren't in a life raft, the sharks weren't a danger even if it might have seemed scary at the time.
Indeed, tigersharks aren't going to pose any threat what so ever to a GRP hull, the boat was in good condition, albeit with several months worth of growth on the sides. The thing I curious about is their distress calls, they should have had a EPIRB onboard which could have alerted emergency services to their location.
To be honest, I think this is a couple of unqualified sailors taking a boat out which they couldn't adequately crew. Now it's being played up as a miraculous survival story instead of a cautionary tale against stupidity.
-
Indeed, tigersharks aren't going to pose any threat what so ever to a GRP hull, the boat was in good condition, albeit with several months worth of growth on the sides. The thing I curious about is their distress calls, they should have had a EPIRB onboard which could have alerted emergency services to their location.
To be honest, I think this is a couple of unqualified sailors taking a boat out which they couldn't adequately crew. Now it's being played up as a miraculous survival story instead of a cautionary tale against stupidity.
Sounds like they lost their long range radio antenna in the second major storm they hit and, with their mast damage and loss of engine, couldn't sail at more than 4 knots, but got caught in a 10-knot current at one point. They ended up sailing north to try to get out of it, but conditions continued to work agajnst them. Not sure if they had an EPIRB or if it was damaged, or simply an older one not on a commonly -monitored frequency (evidently, this isn't an uncommon issue per /r/amateurradio), but the short-range VHF set they had wasn't thrir only method of communications they set off with.
-
I never got the opportunity to be on a GatorFreighter. I was told those ships were tight quarters as not alot elbow room onboard. Is that true?
For the older ships that is certainly true. The newer LPDs are downright spacious. My experience is limited to one LPH, LSD 41-52, LHD 1-7, LHA 1-5, LPD 11-14 but nothing beyond academic study for the latest LPDs, LHAs, and LHD-8. Bunches of changes amongst those later platforms.
-
My limited experience of amphibs (i.e., LPD-17 for an exercise) tracked with my experience of other ships: plenty of room for equipment, not so much for people.
-
From what I've heard, the Mistrals ended up with so much spare volume that when USN personnel board one, they consider them downright palatial. Don't know if the volume was intentional, or a side effect of meeting the other requirements.
-
The Mistral is such a large ship compared to the old French ship they replaced. The San Antonio's have some space for growth still for future applications. I wonder what will go in there.
-
They had consumed 90% of the food by the time they were rescued. this was confused with the comments that they brought food which could last for 1 year referring to it's perishability
It's a cute story anyway. Kid friendly fodder, methinks.
Since the dogs were still alive, they weren't really in peril quite yet...
-
Since the dogs were still alive, they weren't really in peril quite yet...
the thought did cross my mind >:D "hmm, they haven't even eaten their livestock yet" >:D
-
Years ago I used to have a coworker who used to be a sailboat salesman in San Francisco and he told me many of tale of people buying a boat who didn't know what they were doing sailing wise and the next day or next week they would be leaving the harbor to never be seen again.
-
I never got the opportunity to be on a GatorFreighter. I was told those ships were tight quarters as not alot elbow room onboard. Is that true?
On the basis of absolutely no experience, I was going to ask whether Marines are stored vertically or horizontally?
It isn't so much bunk space that I expected to be cramped but I am more curious about what the embarked troops do when not sleeping/occupying themselves in their bunks
-
On the basis of absolutely no experience, I was going to ask whether Marines are stored vertically or horizontally?
Both I would imagine. They sleep horizontally in stacks of bunks 2-4 bunks high I'm guessing.
-
On the basis of absolutely no experience, I was going to ask whether Marines are stored vertically or horizontally?
It isn't so much bunk space that I expected to be cramped but I am more curious about what the embarked troops do when not sleeping/occupying themselves in their bunks
Well, I suppose that as long as flight operations aren't going on, you can run them in circles around the deck until you're tired... :)
If the deck is busy or the weather is too nice, they've probably got oodles of gear that needs maintenance, or at least repeated disassembly/reassembly.
-
The Mistral ...
I wonder what will go in there.
So does the Russian navy. >:D
-
Those ships are Egyptian now.
-
From what I've heard, the Mistrals ended up with so much spare volume that when USN personnel board one, they consider them downright palatial. Don't know if the volume was intentional, or a side effect of meeting the other requirements.
A Mistral is pretty much sized identically to a San Antonio, except moving things around to become through-deck one level higher and using what the San Antonio has for hangar and flight deck as its hangar. The "spare volume" seems to be mostly in the fact that the Mistral has a much smaller crew (160 vs 360) and typically ships without a full aviation group (hence leaving most of the hangar free).
-
So does the Russian navy. >:D
They were designed for Russian kit which were ripped out during the initial hoo-hah, so they would ideally try to buy that same stuff from the Russkies... Ka-52K choppers and I dunno what armament - Kashtan CIWS perhaps?
-
What I've read, the russians are designing a LHA of their own, but given their economic woes...i don't know if they can kick one out anytime soon.
Their nuclear destroyer and nuclear (or otherwise) aircraft carrier programs are on hold or not spoke bout at the at the moment.
-
The Russians do have the Ivan Gren class landing ship being built.
The ships that they want to build with be Mistral-ski version a combo mini carrier, marine ship, and all other things. We will see how far that goes...or dont.
-
The Russians do have the Ivan Gren class landing ship being built.
Since 2004, currently in sea trials and slated to be commissioned in a few weeks.
She and her sister are pretty much half-sized replacements for the two Ivan Rogovs that have been laid up the last 20 years.
-
Looks like Kuznetsov is going in for a long refit.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a28609/russia-admiral-kuznetsov-downgraded/ (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a28609/russia-admiral-kuznetsov-downgraded/)
-
Given some other long refits of Russian ships, I may be eligible for a pension by the time they put to sea again...
-
Looks like Kuznetsov is going in for a long refit.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a28609/russia-admiral-kuznetsov-downgraded/ (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a28609/russia-admiral-kuznetsov-downgraded/)
i suspect just fixing the ship's engine issues would take up most of the budget they have.
and what do you want to bet that once they have him opened up in drydock, they'll find even more problems that need fixing?
-
A five year refit cycle? Good lord, they're going to be short on qualified pilots by the time that's done. And they're already down two Sea Flankers as it is just from the last deployment. I wouldn't count on Special K putting to sea for a good long time after this...
Wonder if they'll sell it to China.
-
A five year refit cycle? Good lord, they're going to be short on qualified pilots by the time that's done. And they're already down two Sea Flankers as it is just from the last deployment. I wouldn't count on Special K putting to sea for a good long time after this...
Wonder if they'll sell it to China.
Remember, by that point they're hoping to have their own home-made version at sea. So they might not have need for Kuznetsov- certainly not as-is. Remember, Liaoning didn't go into service without China doing their own extensive refit to their standards. Kuznetsov is getting a Russian refit- so China would still need to do yet another refit to get her set up with their own electronics, etc.- and that's assuming the engines work this time.
Ten years ago? They'd probably leap at it. Now? Unless it's a hell of a good bargain, I'd think the Chinese navy would pass this time.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/%E5%81%9C%E6%B3%8A%E4%BA%8E%E5%A4%A7%E8%BF%9E%E6%B8%AF%E7%9A%84001A.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/%E5%81%9C%E6%B3%8A%E4%BA%8E%E5%A4%A7%E8%BF%9E%E6%B8%AF%E7%9A%84001A.jpg)
(Big image, sorry for linking) That's the first Type 001 carrier at its completion dock. Still a ways off from service, but the similarity to the Kuznetsov is pretty obvious even at a glance.
-
Ok, some rambling on my part based on experience and some other information streams I've been exposed to.
On the basis of absolutely no experience, I was going to ask whether Marines are stored vertically or horizontally?
It isn't so much bunk space that I expected to be cramped but I am more curious about what the embarked troops do when not sleeping/occupying themselves in their bunks
It depends. No one is comfortable save for the very few that have their own head/shower. My best accommodations occurred when I was a COT, as mentioned previously, aboard USS ASHLAND. I had a head, cabin (with queen sized mattress), and a stateroom office (with desk, couch, and table). I've seen folks stuffed four or six to a room on a number of occasions. The troops often live in stacks of three across the way from three other folks stacked three high. I've always felt that mid-grade and senior enlisted were housed poorly aboard USN ships. The LPDs are trying to rectify that problem (USMC/USN E-6 berthing is similar to troop officer [4-6 per room w/sink]) but again...nobody is going to be comfortable. Socially, all you can do is respect doors, unless you're the ship's CO, knock and wait for someone to let you inside.
In general, keep in mind that most navies consider amphibs as auxiliaries and therefore the ships aren't constructed or manned as warships. If a nation decides to build ships to commercial vice warship standards then material costs are likely to be less.
-
presumably due to lack of anything else to do, the marines get a lot of Physical Training time assigned on their schedules?
-
presumably due to lack of anything else to do, the marines get a lot of Physical Training time assigned on their schedules?
We used to joke that we were SEALs: Sleep, Eat, and Lift. Since we didn't have any damage control duties we were confined to our berthing areas. So, during General Quarters resulted in many of us entering into MORP...Marine Officer Rest Period.
-
It gets even more cramped when you stuff a Flag staff aboard. As an O-5, I was in a six man stateroom like Charlie 6 described (with five other O-5s). The Admiral was given the XO's stateroom (which was actually quite nice, from what little I saw of it); the XO moved to a closet single for the duration.
-
We used to joke that we were SEALs: Sleep, Eat, and Lift. Since we didn't have any damage control duties we were confined to our berthing areas. So, during General Quarters resulted in many of us entering into MORP...Marine Officer Rest Period.
Odd, our Army passengers are all used in Damage Control, they are spare hands except for when our training group take them out of the picture. They aren't fully trained, just become part of the Resource Management Area and used to take over a lot of the small but important tasks like filling OCCABA. Fire fighting, LS&R and Toxic Hazards all require some intense training, so I can see why no Soldiers of Marines are used in the evolution, but it's got me stumped why you wouldn't have them in the rear area taking care of the house keeping.
-
We used to joke that we were SEALs: Sleep, Eat, and Lift. Since we didn't have any damage control duties we were confined to our berthing areas. So, during General Quarters resulted in many of us entering into MORP...Marine Officer Rest Period.
It gets even more cramped when you stuff a Flag staff aboard. As an O-5, I was in a six man stateroom like Charlie 6 described (with five other O-5s). The Admiral was given the XO's stateroom (which was actually quite nice, from what little I saw of it); the XO moved to a closet single for the duration.
Do you think sustained conditions like that affect effectiveness? I could see that being a drain on morale and general energy/enthusiasm levels. I'm not military but I do a fairly intense job where I get to make literal life and death decisions based on limited information in a time critical situation and have an interest in psychology.
A friend described her deployment on board a Royal Fleet Auxiliary in support of anti-ebola efforts off Sierra Leone as dull in the extreme and the unit of Royal Marine Commandos were equally bored and spent most of the time doing PT: I'm not sure if she got bored of that view or not.
-
Honestly, it depends entirely on what you're doing. The exercise I was part of was more than interesting enough, but of limited duration. A more normal deployment is 6-8 months, and from what I understand (Charlie 6 can confirm or deny), the Marines are usually offloaded for relatively full exercise schedules in theater. The ships usually get a port call at least every 90 days, but not always. My experience on a Fleet staff was that ships are always in high demand to go do something or other, and ARGs often end up disaggregated to meet all the various demand signals from the Combatant Command(s). I think it may eventually drive the Marines to deploy smaller units that can be carried by a single ship.
-
Remember, by that point they're hoping to have their own home-made version at sea. So they might not have need for Kuznetsov- certainly not as-is. Remember, Liaoning didn't go into service without China doing their own extensive refit to their standards. Kuznetsov is getting a Russian refit- so China would still need to do yet another refit to get her set up with their own electronics, etc.- and that's assuming the engines work this time.
Ten years ago? They'd probably leap at it. Now? Unless it's a hell of a good bargain, I'd think the Chinese navy would pass this time.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/%E5%81%9C%E6%B3%8A%E4%BA%8E%E5%A4%A7%E8%BF%9E%E6%B8%AF%E7%9A%84001A.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/%E5%81%9C%E6%B3%8A%E4%BA%8E%E5%A4%A7%E8%BF%9E%E6%B8%AF%E7%9A%84001A.jpg)
(Big image, sorry for linking) That's the first Type 001 carrier at its completion dock. Still a ways off from service, but the similarity to the Kuznetsov is pretty obvious even at a glance.
Type 001A (or CV-17) should be online soon. I am curious when their Type 002 will end up coming on line. Type 002 (CV-18) been under construction since 2016. She supposedly going have steam catapults to launch heavier fighters.
That's when things will get dicey in the Pacific.
-
Type 001A (or CV-17) should be online soon. I am curious when their Type 002 will end up coming on line. Type 002 (CV-18) been under construction since 2016. She supposedly going have steam catapults to launch heavier fighters.
That's when things will get dicey in the Pacific.
I'd be more worried about the Indian Ocean - I would expect the PRC to be able to act against most opponents in their "local" area of the Pacific with land based aircraft* and at most might need an ASW light carrier to try to scare off the USN's SSNs. However, China is making a lot of links with Africa and Pakistan to gain a clear path for trade there which won't have a nearby friendly airbase. I hope that no one anywhere (except maybe the more northerly bits of a certain peninsula) is foolish enough to try to take on the might of the US with a pair of carriers and associated air groups.
*I may be completely wrong in my knowledge and understanding of this geography
-
A five year refit cycle? Good lord, they're going to be short on qualified pilots by the time that's done. And they're already down two Sea Flankers as it is just from the last deployment. I wouldn't count on Special K putting to sea for a good long time after this...
Wonder if they'll sell it to China.
One Flanker and one Fulcrum, IIRC. China can make a new one carrier in the time it's going to take the Russians to complete the refit. The Type 001A was laid down in March 2015 and launched April 2017 with an expected commissioning date of 2020.
-
I'd be more worried about the Indian Ocean - I would expect the PRC to be able to act against most opponents in their "local" area of the Pacific with land based aircraft* and at most might need an ASW light carrier to try to scare off the USN's SSNs. However, China is making a lot of links with Africa and Pakistan to gain a clear path for trade there which won't have a nearby friendly airbase. I hope that no one anywhere (except maybe the more northerly bits of a certain peninsula) is foolish enough to try to take on the might of the US with a pair of carriers and associated air groups.
*I may be completely wrong in my knowledge and understanding of this geography
I think that's why the US is helping out India with their Aircraft Carrier efforts to help balance things out. Unfortunately, they continue to struggle to get all their ducks in a row.
The Vikrant has been delayed until 2023. She only a 40,000 ton carrier with sky ramp.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/INS_Vikrant_being_undocked_at_the_Cochin_Shipyard_Limited_in_2015_%2807%29.jpg)
Fortunately their India's high expensive former Russian Carrier, INS Vikramaditya, so far is providing air support at the moment.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/INS_Vikramaditya_%28R33%29_close_shot.jpg/1280px-INS_Vikramaditya_%28R33%29_close_shot.jpg)
-
Sensitive topic. But lets treat it tactically.
Yes the PLAN had a problem operating in the Pacific due to the lack and inexperience of their carrier-based air. They solved that by building "unsinkable carriers" in the Spratlys on Fiery Cross Reed etc smack dab in the middle of the pond.
Fiery Cross Reef is still vulnerable even if packed full of SAMs - USS Ohio flushing her Tomahawk tubes should overwhelm anything by sheer mass of fire. So the PLAN will still build and operate at least 3 carrier groups on top of Liaoning - the rotation factor should see at least 1, probably 2 carriers on hand in the Pacific to back up landbased air flying from the Spratlys.
Trade routes heading east however inevitably pass through the Malacca Straits. Frankly I think there is no real choice but to deal with the countries there diplomatically, and it seems China has poured lots of money into Malaysia and Indonesia, who are anyway ideologically opposed to the West.
But after that... well the Chinese next have to contend with the Indians, with whom they had a little dust-up recently, and the Indians are building carriers too. INS Vikrant is based on INS Vikramaditya, the extensively modified former Kiev-class Baku. And the Indians plan on building INS Vishal, a 65,000-ton carrier next - obviously inspired by the QE2-class.
INS Vikrant in May 2017
(https://s1.postimg.org/8h8itishen/image.jpg)
-
Sensitive topic. But lets treat it tactically.
Yes the PLAN had a problem operating in the Pacific due to the lack and inexperience of their carrier-based air. They solved that by building "unsinkable carriers" in the Spratlys on Fiery Cross Reed etc smack dab in the middle of the pond.
Lol, unsinkable? Not even close. Those islands are recovered reefs and made primarily out of sand, I'll let you do the maths.
Fiery Cross Reef is still vulnerable even if packed full of SAMs - USS Ohio flushing her Tomahawk tubes should overwhelm anything by sheer mass of fire. So the PLAN will still build and operate at least 3 carrier groups on top of Liaoning - the rotation factor should see at least 1, probably 2 carriers on hand in the Pacific to back up landbased air flying from the Spratlys.
South China Sea, not the Pacific. Have to go across the Philippines or Malaysia to get to the Pacific from there.
Trade routes heading east however inevitably pass through the Malacca Straits. Frankly I think there is no real choice but to deal with the countries there diplomatically, and it seems China has poured lots of money into Malaysia and Indonesia, who are anyway ideologically opposed to the West.
I'm going to assume you mean east from Europe and Africa, not from CONUS. There are several ways to get through the Indonesian archipelago, the Malacca is just the largest. You could quite easily transit from Europe to Singapore going through the Sunda or Lombok, it wouldn't even take that much longer going through Sunda. If you are heading to the Philippines, it's faster to go through Sunda or Lombok, if you're heading towards the US, it's about the same time to go through the Torres. Malacca is an institution because there are three nations that border it, one of which is was a trade hub. About the only place it's significantly shorter to go through the Malacca is India and the Middle East.
But after that... well the Chinese next have to contend with the Indians, with whom they had a little dust-up recently, and the Indians are building carriers too. INS Vikrant is based on INS Vikramaditya, the extensively modified former Kiev-class Baku. And the Indians plan on building INS Vishal, a 65,000-ton carrier next - obviously inspired by the QE2-class.
The Indians have a massive navy, they are highly experienced with carrier operations, and well, they are just really, really good.
-
Lol, unsinkable? Not even close. Those islands are recovered reefs and made primarily out of sand, I'll let you do the maths.
And you cannot play "hide the carrier battle group" with an unsinkable carrier that everybody knows the GPS co-ordinates for . . .
(http://bossroyal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/BOSSROYAL-GBU-Drop.gif)
-
We've strayed pretty much right up to Rule 4 and looked it in the eye here, guys. Let's get back to photos. It's an interesting topic, no way around it, but it's one that we need to step back from.
On that note, came across this interesting shot postwar of the wreck of Haruna. The camo on the turrets is intriguing in particular, but it shows that while the ship sank upright, there was no hope she'd be in any kind of shape to help defend against American invasion forces if that had come to pass. Japan's plan was to try to keep the ships here (along with Ise and Hyuga) from capsizing so that they could use their guns still, but it would have taken a Herculean effort to do anything more than shout obscenities at the landing ships based on this. Note that the tender alongside even is only saved from capsizing by the hulk of the battleship.
(https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/P01604.008/screen/3969477.JPG)
-
Rule 4 proximity noted and avoid C:-)
Full ahead flank, drop decoys and pingers!
-
Rule 4 will never find us in this fog!
-
...My experience on a Fleet staff was that ships are always in high demand to go do something or other, and ARGs often end up disaggregated to meet all the various demand signals from the Combatant Command(s)...
I wanted to get back to this for a bit. I've been reading about the current Marine/Navy ESG (successor to the ARG) recently, and it appears they are still trying to figure out how to deal with these demands that prompt them to split up the ships in the group. One of the big problems is how the equipment is split up across the three main amphibs of an ESG. One ship has almost all of the aviation assets with a bunch of marines and a few vehicles, one ship has a bunch of marines and more of the lighter vehicles, and the third ship has most of the heavy equipment and tanks, but not so many marines. That doesn't split up all that well if you try to peel one of those ships off. The way the equipment is spread out, it is going to be difficult to split up and still maintain at least a reduced form of all the capabilities you had when all three were together. The ESG is already a reasonably small unit, as these things go. I'm not sure how much smaller you can slice things without having to seriously limit the types of action you expect the group to perform.
-
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=42557)
USS America LHA-6.
I guess her F-35's are in the hangar deck?
-
Rule 4 will never find us in this fog!
What if Hellbie starts singing the Russian national anthem?
-
Let him sing.
(At the other end of the ship.)
-
(https://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/russian-kirov-class-cruiser-firing.jpg)
"This'll shut him up."
-
It's not surprising that my ability to collect warship pictures outstrips my ability to identify them all. What is surprising is that the extras are so few. Can anyone ID these vessels?
-
Number one is HMS Barham, at the 1937 Spithead review. (I remember it well, I was able to convince a publican that Monopoly money was US dollars ...)
The second is a [ur;=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gowind-class_corvette]Gowind[/url] c;ass corvette - Egyptian, and according to wiki optimised for UAV, USV and UUV operations.
-
Thanks!
-
The Gowind class are a corvette family developed by DCNS. The Egyptians have commissioned 1, and the Malaysian Navy have selected it as their main surface combatant, building 6 ships to be launched over the next decade or so, armed with MICA SAMs, Kongsberg NSMs, Mu90 torpedoes and Thales Smart-S radar. The class is not particularly optimised for operating drones, that's just fluff. Just another short-legged do-anything ship for smaller navies... DCNS tried to sell it hard to the French Navy, to the extent of building one (L'Adroit) and leasing it to the French as an OPV. I don't know why the French didn't bite.
-
I wanted to get back to this for a bit. I've been reading about the current Marine/Navy ESG (successor to the ARG) recently, and it appears they are still trying to figure out how to deal with these demands that prompt them to split up the ships in the group. One of the big problems is how the equipment is split up across the three main amphibs of an ESG. One ship has almost all of the aviation assets with a bunch of marines and a few vehicles, one ship has a bunch of marines and more of the lighter vehicles, and the third ship has most of the heavy equipment and tanks, but not so many marines. That doesn't split up all that well if you try to peel one of those ships off. The way the equipment is spread out, it is going to be difficult to split up and still maintain at least a reduced form of all the capabilities you had when all three were together. The ESG is already a reasonably small unit, as these things go. I'm not sure how much smaller you can slice things without having to seriously limit the types of action you expect the group to perform.
Now you've got me thinking about this and looking at Wikipedia on this; I think the type of thing (mission/operation/exercise) that leads to an ESG splitting up is not sort where you are going into harms way so it should matter less that that the embarked Marine force is divided unequally. The size of the embarked Marine force does surprise me - considering it is "only" built around a battalion of infantry (which to my mind is about 700) there are nearly 3000!
A force of F-35s will make this even more terrifying for anyone on the wrong end of it - potentially a strike group as potent as the next carrier group in the world plus a large force of grumpy Marines
-
Here you go,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOAtz8xWM0w
-
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/170916-N-AC254-750.jpg)
USS America LHA-6.
I guess her F-35's are in the hangar deck?
Or they weren't embarked for that exercise.
-
I can't find an open source answer to what 15th MEU and PHIBRON 3 took aboard the AMERICA ARG as a fixed-wing component to VMM-161. On the other hand, 3 x MV-22s, 2 x CH-53s, and some number of H-1s and H-60s are also missing in that picture. It could be that some are cross decked to the LPD while others are "dirt-det'ed" ashore somewhere. Or most of the planes not pictured are in the air.
ESG is a loaded term and not the follow-on to the ARG. The ARG still exists. The ESG was meant to be a deployable flag headquarters for a ARG/MEU but fell by the wayside in the early '00s. It exists now as a quasi-follow-on to the Amphibious Group without a number of capabilities. If you want the current thoughts on the subject, google "Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment".
-
I don't know why the French didn't bite.
The French originally in 2012 had a requirement for 26 OPVs under the BATSIMAR project, for which DCNS tried to sell them the D'Adroit (Gowind OPV90 type, renamed "Kership" type).
The OPV mission, in particular for overseas, is considered more of a step-child of the Navy though, preferring its core projects (like FTI), and - also due to the sheer size of BATSIMAR - it is being postponed continuously while here and there other, more dedicated ships are being bought to plug holes - the B2M multi-purpose patrol ships, a new polar patrol ship for the Antarctic and the PLG 60m patrol boats for Guinea, to be specific.
BATSIMAR is therefore delayed to the first half of the 2020s right now (deliveries not before 2024), and i have doubts it'll be L'Adroit. Current planned numbers are to expand the B2M class to six ships instead and procure 12 BATSIMAR. These would be split to six naval theaters at one B2M and two BATSIMAR each.
-
Isn't OPV basically another name for Patrol Ship? Essentially handles other civilian related missions (Policing, Environmental Response, Rescue) but is better oriented for light combat vs a Coast Guard vessel (not talking US) that's not geared necessarily with heavier weaponry beyond a machine guns (if their lucky 25mm/57mm cannon) for the ship and built with commercial standards economically?
-
@kato - can you give a quick review of either the French or German navy future expansion strategy? I'm well up on the Royal Navy which is centered on the carriers aka CEPP, but other than the future ship classes of the French and German navies I do not know what is the grand strategy/doctrine in mind.
Isn't OPV basically another name for Patrol Ship? Essentially handles other civilian related missions (Policing, Environmental Response, Rescue) but is better oriented for light combat vs a Coast Guard vessel (not talking US) that's not geared necessarily with heavier weaponry beyond a machine guns (if their lucky 25mm/57mm cannon) for the ship and built with commercial standards economically?
1 rule-of-thumb definition of OPV is that it doesn't mount any missiles.
Me, I wonder what the heck was wrong with "patrol boat" in the first place...
-
The military love their acronyms.
PB (patrol boat) is so old-fashioned being only a two letter acronym.
To make it a modern and futuristic concept in our network-centric warfighting paradigm you at least have to have a three letter acronym if not a NMLA (Nested Multi-Letter Acronym), so OPV (Off-shore Patrol Vessel) is so much sexier ^-^
-
1 rule-of-thumb definition of OPV is that it doesn't mount any missiles.
Me, I wonder what the heck was wrong with "patrol boat" in the first place...
The military love their acronyms.
PB (patrol boat) is so old-fashioned being only a two letter acronym.
To make it a modern and futuristic concept in our network-centric warfighting paradigm you at least have to have a three letter acronym if not a NMLA (Nested Multi-Letter Acronym), so OPV (Off-shore Patrol Vessel) is so much sexier ^-^
I think the French call them avisos don't they? Those are small fast ships mainly for courier work pre-long range radio based communications and with the range to go to/from the non-mainland France bits of France. That is a slightly different role (although fairly minor or nuanced differences) to the OPV which to me suggests a more corvette sized ship capable of sustained operations away from a base as opposed to a patrol boat that would have a significantly more limited range and be mainly used from harbour.
ESG is a loaded term and not the follow-on to the ARG. The ARG still exists. The ESG was meant to be a deployable flag headquarters for a ARG/MEU but fell by the wayside in the early '00s. It exists now as a quasi-follow-on to the Amphibious Group without a number of capabilities. If you want the current thoughts on the subject, google "Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment".
Without looking, I feel the answer to the question about "contested littoral operations with large slow targets ships full of crunchies" is something like "see Land Wars In South East Asia and Getting Into Contests With Sicilians When Death Is At Stake"
-
@kato - can you give a quick review of either the French or German navy future expansion strategy? I'm well up on the Royal Navy which is centered on the carriers aka CEPP, but other than the future ship classes of the French and German navies I do not know what is the grand strategy/doctrine in mind.
The French strategy is centered around making available:
- the carrier battle group centered around Charles de Gaulle with six first-rank escorts (Horizon, FREMM) plus auxiliaries (at Toulon)
- the strategic strike group centered around the four SSBNs and four first-rank escorts (FREMM) plus auxiliaries (at Brest)
- a forward operations group usually used singly or in small task forces, also as a possible plug-in for the carrier group, consisting of the three Mistrals, five second-rank frigate escorts (La Fayette, being replaced with FTI) and - due to their detached operations - the SSNs; plus auxiliaries and mine warfare vessels (at Toulon)
- six "local theater forces" - based at the four overseas theaters and the French Mediterranean (Toulon) and Atlantic (Brest) ports. Each would consist of by standard a B2M support/patrol vessel (or comparable) and two large offshore patrol ships plus possibly smaller assets for inshore patrol and - see below - possibly a third-rank frigate (currently Floreal).
The carrier battle group and strategic strike group are basically not seeing any sort of expansion; current project is around replacing older destroyers with FREMMs, other than that there's only some smaller per-asset improvement here (e.g. CdG and her escorts moving towards a BMD role as well).
Within this frame work, the main contested point these days seems to be how to replace the Floreals; there are two scenarios, one in which each of the above local theater forces would get an additional third-rank frigate attached and one (preferred by the Navy) which would apparently see expanding the forward operations group with a second batch of FTI second-rank frigates which would notionally replace the Avisos currently stationed at Brest and Toulon.
The outfit of BATSIMAR (the OPV replacement, long-planned) is somewhat hinged around that point too, since reducing the local theater forces by their frigates would mean you'd have to buy something a bit more capable for these OPVs.
The idea behind the forward operations group above is mainly to give each Mistral a notional escort vessel plus have two ships available for sending off single for other presence missions. In wartime this group could be formed up into an amphibious strike group. The Navy's focus to some extent is on reinforcing this - FTI will be far more capable as escorts than the current La Fayette class.
---
As for Germany, there isn't any strategy behind it ;)
Seriously, there used to be one ten years ago - "ZVM 2025+" / "Target Conception Navy 2025+" - but if you read that now about two thirds of its projects have been scrapped and replaced otherwise. The general layout however remains:
- fielding a high-intensity fleet group centered around F124, F123 and attached K130 (or MKS180).
- fielding a mid-intensity fleet group centered around F125, MKS180 and remaining K130 plus mine warfare assets.
SSKs and auxiliaries are split about evenly between the above groups. Recent projects (K130 2nd batch and MKS180), if laid out like above, bring numbers to nearly those envisioned by ZVM 2025+: 5 ships in the first group ready for 6-month deployment at any time and 6 ships in the second group available to be continously deployed overseas. With 27 ships available after about 2026 there's basically just one hull missing to make those numbers. Medium-term most other projects also tend to "coincidentally" fill up slots in the ZVM 2025+ numbers, such as the two additional submarines planned for the second half of the 2020s to be procured jointly with Norway.
The first group is intended to deploy in real warfare scenarios, typically in support of Allied navies. The second group is intended to provide the ships for the deployments we have continuously going on - e.g. UNIFIL, Atalanta, the NATO SNMG groups and so on. The high-intensity group is somewhat specialized towards blue water warfare, the mid-intensity group towards littoral warfare - in fact Germany has for a couple years now hosted NATO's Center of Excellence for Operations in Confined and Shallow Waters, and annually holds rather large naval exercises in the Western Baltic Sea tailored towards that with about every allied navy involved (except the US, they usually send some observers).
ZVM 2025+ also envisioned building up an amphibious capability with two LHDs or three LPDs, to be attached to the high-intensity group; this has been cast aside, mostly because - like every time the topic came up - the Navy wanted the Army to pay for that. There is an ongoing cooperation with the Netherlands to rebuild an initial capability - realized by placing the German Naval Infantry Battalion under Dutch command and having it use Dutch ships in training. Since the budgetary situation looks good in the long term, naval planning staff at the MoD is already envisioning now that within ten years this could turn into a joint amphibious strike group with 2-4 LPDs or LHDs.
In the same vein, it will be interesting whether currently intended procurement will also basically fulfill ZVM 2025+. This mostly concerns, since these are up for replacement in the next ~5 years:
- the tenders; ZVM 2025+ envisioned using small LPDs in this role to vastly expand possible uses. Not particularly realistic though.
- the mine warfare ships; ZVM 2025+ wanted these embedded as modules on the above tender-LPDs, with autonomous units for the Baltic Sea.
- the new tankers; ZVM 2025+ wanted up to five (there's the replacement for the current two upcoming).
Recent development strategy is centered around joint procurement and operations; the above amphibious group is an example, but we'll probably also relatively soon see BMD being added to the high-intensity group's portfolio in a joint system with the Netherlands, Belgium and possibly Denmark. Similarly, there's a push towards joint operation and support of submarines in particular, being somewhat realized with the German-Norwegian joint procurement and the Polish Navy placing its submarines under German operational command as well as some trials on supporting Dutch submarines from German tenders.
-
P.S.
the mid-intensity group towards littoral warfare - in fact Germany has for a couple years now hosted NATO's Center of Excellence for Operations in Confined and Shallow Waters, and annually holds rather large naval exercises in the Western Baltic Sea tailored towards that with about every allied navy involved (except the US, they usually send some observers).
In that vein, from Northern Coasts 2017 last month:
(https://abload.de/img/noco17-29wse5.png)
(https://abload.de/img/noco17-3nkstb.png)
(https://abload.de/img/noco17fksxs.png)
The exercise this year was held off the coast of Sweden and involved 5000 soldiers, 20 large and 25 small ships, 4 submarines and around 20 aircraft.
The LPD visible in the second picture, Karel Doorman, is the one co-used by Germany and the Netherlands; it was withdrawn from the exercise shortly after that picture though in order to deploy to the Netherlands Antilles against hurricane Irma. The original scenario called for it being used in an amphibious landing to take some villages near the coast which was called off, so the German and Dutch marines instead continued their previous training exercise in Germany. The assault on south Sweden... err, on "south Vena"... was instead performed by German paratroopers. The naval side of the exercise saw escalating attacks on EU assets starting from small boats by separatists in those coastal villages to full-blown naval blockades using submarines and other ships by neighboring "Sarka" against "Vena".
-
@kato - excellent stuff! M gonna chew on that for some time to come ;D
To make it a modern and futuristic concept in our network-centric warfighting paradigm you at least have to have a three letter acronym if not a NMLA (Nested Multi-Letter Acronym), so OPV (Off-shore Patrol Vessel) is so much sexier ^-^
I am reminded of what Russell Baker wrote about grandiose multi-syllable synonyms... from wikiquote: "Show them a lean, plain word that cuts to the bone and watch them lard it with thick greasy syllables front and back until it wheezes and gasps for breath as it comes lumbering down upon some poor threadbare sentence like a sack of iron on a swayback horse."
-
@Kidd
Are the French using the old 17th-18th century method of designating ships by that ranking system?
-
@Kidd
Are the French using the old 17th-18th century method of designating ships by that ranking system?
Of course not ;D though there are similarities. The French are simply stating fact; this is a hi-lo mix, that's the high, and this is the low. No dressing up of this as a "littoral combat ship" and that as a "destroyer", or this as a "global combat ship" and that as a "air-warfare destroyer".
In many ways their approach to defence is very pragmatic, to us outside observers at least.
-
Yeah, that's...a thing?
-
The similarities work pretty well. Age of Sail frigates had much the same mission profile as modern destroyers and frigates. They were escorts and forward sensor platforms for the capital ships, and also took part in solo operations that don't call for a capital ship but needs more than a corvette or patrol boat. Sounds an awful lot like modern deployment patterns to me.
-
we've discussed this before... the wheel turns... a "ship of the line" used to mean a ship that can stand in the battle line and slug it out without being reduced to splinters in very short order - in that sense, a "ship of the line" today would be one equipped with multiple layered anti-missile defences.
USS Bonhomme Richard fires a Sea Sparrow. Perhaps because of the similarity to BT Dropships and the inherent complexity of their operation, LPDs and LHDs have always fascinated me.
(https://s1.postimg.org/2m9r0ch0in/160918-_N-_BB269-036.jpg)
-
we've discussed this before... the wheel turns... a "ship of the line" used to mean a ship that can stand in the battle line and slug it out without being reduced to splinters in very short order - in that sense, a "ship of the line" today would be one equipped with multiple layered anti-missile defences.
Agreed, which is why I made sure to say capital ship instead of Ship of the Line.
I'm also aware that no metaphor survives contact with sufficient poking, so you probably needn't bother.
-
"Did someone say 'capital ship'?"
(http://navaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/russia-to-equip-nuclear-powered-oscar-class-submarines-with-kalibr-cruise-missiles.jpg)
-
Yeah, that works. :)
-
After 5 months lost at sea, 2 women and their dogs were rescued in the Pacific by the crew of the USS Ashland LSD-48. (https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2017/10/27/two-women-were-lost-at-sea-for-5-months-but-at-least-they-had-their-dogs)Huzzah to them and the fishing boat that rescued them!
Thank god they stashed a year worth of food! Survived storms and swarms of sharks!
There are some questions over just what actually happened emerging: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sailors-rescued-after-months-sea-didn-t-activate-emergency-beacon-n815876
They had an emergency locator beacon but never activated it, the storm they claim to have been caught in doesn't show up on meteorological records, and they claim that their 50 foot sailboat was somehow too big to fit into any harbors, among other things.
-
There are some questions over just what actually happened emerging: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sailors-rescued-after-months-sea-didn-t-activate-emergency-beacon-n815876
They had an emergency locator beacon but never activated it, the storm they claim to have been caught in doesn't show up on meteorological records, and they claim that their 50 foot sailboat was somehow too big to fit into any harbors, among other things.
I was wondering about that too. When i read the initial story they just were speaking about rescue itself. I had assume initially that the beacon had failed or something like that.
Pretty darn risky thing to do make themselves famous or something or their bunch of fools.
-
I've now had a chance to read the link Charlie-6 recommended about littoral combat and operations.
It strikes me that this has identified a large hole in the USN's capability (I may be wrong) - a lack of smaller but still capable warships. The LCS seem to be a rather flawed concept and probably too weak while the Arleigh Burkes are too big and expensive and are needed elsewhere.
While I don't think the USN will "buy foreign" I would think the Danish Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt classes would seem about a perfect solution.
-
I was wondering about that too. When i read the initial story they just were speaking about rescue itself. I had assume initially that the beacon had failed or something like that.
Pretty darn risky thing to do make themselves famous or something or their bunch of fools.
Snopes.com now has an article on it. Among other inconsistencies, it says that the Coast Guard made contact with a vessel identifying itself as the Sea Nymph (the name of their boat) in June and they said they were not in distress and expected to make landfall the next morning. The increasing number of inconsistencies make their entire story dubious.
https://www.snopes.com/2017/10/31/hawaii-rescue/
-
a lack of smaller but still capable warships.
Small is relative. The "core fleet" for the above German "littoral mid-intensity flotilla" is composed of ships (F125, MKS180) the physical size of an Arleigh Burke actually. The F125 in particular doesn't carry that much more armament than a LCS - okay, it does - it just spreads that out over a much bigger hull. With a crew one-third of a Burke, electronics maybe two-thirds as capable and plenty of room to spare - though a lot goes into putting even all the enlisted in 4-bunk (!) rooms.
The MKS180, its future bigger brother (slated at up to 9000 tons), basically just adds a VLS with some ESSM and designated space for modules much like on LCS. Except that module space is probably as big as an entire LCS by itself...
It's a pity there aren't many pictures around showing a F125 together with another ship for size comparison (nevermind the so far classified designs for the MKS180).
Here's one though: F222 Baden-Württemberg (F125) with F221 Hessen (F124) in Wilhelmshaven; another F124 in the background.
(https://abload.de/img/f125-2kyjvk.png)
While I don't think the USN will "buy foreign" I would think the Danish Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt classes would seem about a perfect solution.
OMT will sell the design pretty cheaply, it's not exactly like the shipyard that designed them and "built" them for the Danish Navy - or the two sweatshop shipyards in Eastern Europe where they were actually built - is still around anymore anyway.
-
While I don't think the USN will "buy foreign" I would think the Danish Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt classes would seem about a perfect solution.
My understanding, from a conversation a few years ago, is that those ships are built to a near commercial standard and don't suit the damage control requirements of a warship. I don't know for certain, though.
-
If my memory serves me correctly, the
LCSs Frigates are also built to commercial not warfighting standard . . .
-
I wonder why we don't take that design attitude with other things, like building tanks to commercial vehicle spec instead.
-
The LCS is more or less. I don't believe that's supposed to be the case with the new frigate design, but I could be wrong. Not sure where the National Security Cutter falls, either, a variant of which is on the running for the new USN frigate.
-
sorry no picture, but... 5-inch gun plus saboted railgun slug equals nearly Mach 6...!
https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Navy-to-Fire-Rail-Gun-Hypervelocity-Projectile-From-5-inch-Guns-103103278
-
It's not a "saboted railgun slug" - it's a regular subcaliber projectile fired from it. Similar to Leonardo's Vulcano, with about the same characteristica too (as Vulcano BER, an unguided sabotted 90mm subcaliber round for 127mm and 155mm tubes). With the difference that Vulcano is available as a guided projectile too. And Vulcano BER weighs a tad more (10%) for more effect at range in lieu of speed.
-
Charles de Gaulle, escorted by the Belgian frigate Leopold I.
(https://www.mil.be/sites/mil.be/files/article/0_2.jpg)
-
HMS Severn has been retired. (http://www.naval-technology.com/news/british-navys-river-class-patrol-ship-hms-severn-decommissioned/)She a Patrol Ship (OPV) vessel, who came in commission with the Royal Navy in 2003. She only 15 years old.
Does the UK Navy always cycle through their ships so fast? I know they don't leave ships in commission for long, but it seems to be bit short of a career. I realize obsoletion is a thing, but this is essentially patrol boat, not a Frigate. Is it sort keep the economy stimulated and shipyards busy?
(http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-Navy/Patrol-Vessel/P282-HMS-Severn_DAT/P282-HMS-Severn-004.jpg)
-
Oh, boy.
The board-friendly account - the UK's fiscal difficulties means an ultra-tight defence budget directly affecting ship and sailor numbers; no fleet expansion is possible at this time. Due to contractual agreements to preserve shipbuilding capability 3 Rivers Batch 2 were built and will replace the Batch 1s starting this year. They are much more capable OPVs being kitted out with the best sensor fit possible though still only armed with a 30mm RWS and a helideck, no hangar.
-
kitted out with the best sensor fit possible
The Terma Scanter 4100 on the Batch 2 Rivers is nothing unusual. The equivalently-sized Danish Knud Rasmussen OPVs fit the same outfit plus X-Band fire-control radar (for their ffbnw ESSM); the far larger Dutch Hollands with their I-Mast 400 easily outstrip both in capability.
-
I wonder if Severn will be mothballed or sold off. I imagine there's plenty of smaller navies that would pay good money for a solid 21st century OPV that's only recently lost its new-warship smell.
-
The Terma Scanter 4100 on the Batch 2 Rivers is nothing unusual. The equivalently-sized Danish Knud Rasmussen OPVs fit the same outfit plus X-Band fire-control radar (for their ffbnw ESSM); the far larger Dutch Hollands with their I-Mast 400 easily outstrip both in capability.
AFAIK (ie only as an interested civilian observer), "best possible" in this case means best possible without major redesign, fitting only what BAE was immediately prepared to fit.
Would be cool to have the Martlet missile added to that 30mm gun tho
(http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MSI-Seahawk-SIGMA.jpg)
I wonder if Severn will be mothballed or sold off. I imagine there's plenty of smaller navies that would pay good money for a solid 21st century OPV that's only recently lost its new-warship smell.
Good question. There's no shortage of need for more antipiracy hulls here in the SEA for sure. But defence money is tight all over and there might be need to adapt the boats to tropical waters.
Probably some UK-friendly UAE state like Bahrain might shell out for the lot. Oh yes maybe Chile or Brazil too.
-
Not Brazil. Their financial status post-Olympics is rough enough that I'd be surprised if they went warship-shopping. Particularly since they're not exactly in an imminent-threat situation.
-
My understanding, from a conversation a few years ago, is that those ships are built to a near commercial standard and don't suit the damage control requirements of a warship. I don't know for certain, though.
Interesting. I wonder if the ships are considered somewhat disposable in the event of a "hot" war in the Baltic and whether the crews are expected to have time to get off or are also considered disposable. In the wider-world of maritime security, evacuating people from places having revolutions/uprisings and anti-piracy I would expect the lack of damage control to be less of an issue as they shouldn't be facing anything that can harm the hull.
HMS Severn has been retired. (http://www.naval-technology.com/news/british-navys-river-class-patrol-ship-hms-severn-decommissioned/)She a Patrol Ship (OPV) vessel, who came in commission with the Royal Navy in 2003. She only 15 years old.
Does the UK Navy always cycle through their ships so fast? I know they don't leave ships in commission for long, but it seems to be bit short of a career. I realize obsoletion is a thing, but this is essentially patrol boat, not a Frigate. Is it sort keep the economy stimulated and shipyards busy?
(http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-Navy/Patrol-Vessel/P282-HMS-Severn_DAT/P282-HMS-Severn-004.jpg)
Oh, boy.
The board-friendly account - the UK's fiscal difficulties means an ultra-tight defence budget directly affecting ship and sailor numbers; no fleet expansion is possible at this time. Due to contractual agreements to preserve shipbuilding capability 3 Rivers Batch 2 were built and will replace the Batch 1s starting this year. They are much more capable OPVs being kitted out with the best sensor fit possible though still only armed with a 30mm RWS and a helideck, no hangar.
I wonder if Severn will be mothballed or sold off. I imagine there's plenty of smaller navies that would pay good money for a solid 21st century OPV that's only recently lost its new-warship smell.
From memory these ships were leased by the RN from the manufacturer (Vosper Thornycroft I think) rather than bought and as the manufacturer then went and made a better version for someone else straight after I suspect there may also have been an element of buyer's remorse about these ships from the get-go.
The RN also seems to generally prefer to have the slower smaller vessels have anti-mining capabilities so while there are only 3-4 OPVs there are a lot of minehunters and minesweepers.
Compared to most equivalent or peer navies, I feel the RN has a tradition and on going role of distant patrolling and commerce protection for the size. The other European powers tend to be more focused on local protection or at least only deploying to where there are friendly bases while the USN is 1) huge and 2) feels more built around large multi-ship expeditionary or strike forces. The SSNs are the best tool for this sort of cruising in a lot of ways but suffer sometimes from their lack of visibility in the same way that their invisibility means that we can have them potentially be in lots of places and no one will know until the torpedo, Harpoon or Tomahawk hits.
-
Not Brazil. Their financial status post-Olympics is rough enough that I'd be surprised if they went warship-shopping. Particularly since they're not exactly in an imminent-threat situation.
Plus they already have three Amazonas-class corvettes that are based on the River-class, but with extra guns (2x25mm and MGs)
-
Plus they already have three Amazonas-class corvettes that are based on the River-class, but with extra guns (2x25mm and MGs)
Hey, those piranhas are fierce and the ships need a solid array of light autocannon for self defence
-
In the wider-world of maritime security, evacuating people from places having revolutions/uprisings and anti-piracy I would expect the lack of damage control to be less of an issue as they shouldn't be facing anything that can harm the hull.
German frigates, including the above F125 with its MIO focus intended specifically for those kind of missions run a two-island concept - doubling all electronics between forward and aft superstructure so that the ship can continue operating in case one superstructure is incapacitated in an attack. With F125 this is particularly heavily used, with the radar surfaces for the main radar spread over both forward and aft mast (thus keeping up partial coverage), an EO sensor system for 360-degree surveillance buried down into the hull instead of the superstructure, as well as doubling all energy and cooling systems and all combat and ship operating spaces between forward and aft island.
-
HMS Severn has been retired. (http://www.naval-technology.com/news/british-navys-river-class-patrol-ship-hms-severn-decommissioned/)She a Patrol Ship (OPV) vessel, who came in commission with the Royal Navy in 2003. She only 15 years old.
Does the UK Navy always cycle through their ships so fast? I know they don't leave ships in commission for long, but it seems to be bit short of a career. I realize obsoletion is a thing, but this is essentially patrol boat, not a Frigate. Is it sort keep the economy stimulated and shipyards busy?
(http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-Navy/Patrol-Vessel/P282-HMS-Severn_DAT/P282-HMS-Severn-004.jpg)
More to do with budget cuts...
-
I also get the impression that the Batch 2 vessels that are replacing them are larger and more capable as well (probably closer to what the RN would like those boats to be capable of).
-
This is from wiki about Batch 2 River Class OPV.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/OPVinfographic.jpg)
-
Interesting. I wonder if the ships are considered somewhat disposable in the event of a "hot" war in the Baltic and whether the crews are expected to have time to get off or are also considered disposable. In the wider-world of maritime security, evacuating people from places having revolutions/uprisings and anti-piracy I would expect the lack of damage control to be less of an issue as they shouldn't be facing anything that can harm the hull.
A few thoughts:
No ship is considered disposable, even the Oliver Hazard Perry's, which are infamous for this. It is acknowledged, however, that losses are going to occur, and every navy would rather lose a frigate than a destroyer, a destroyer over a cruiser and a cruiser over a carrier, it's all about numbers at that point. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie War of the Roses "Divorce is like a war, there's no such thing as winning, only varying degrees of losing".
Lots of things can harm the hull, most of them are pretty cheap too. For the record, however, hull integrity requirements in modern vessels are all set to civilian requirements, most of them cover leaks and discharges, not impact resistance. Modern vessels aren't armoured, as this was expensive and ultimately pointless. The only real advantage warships tend to have, in terms of survival, is more water tight bulkheads and generally duplicated power and cabling. Most warships can have around six or seven power configurations to prevent total loss even if two major engineering compartments are lost. Ultimately though, ships are somewhat fragile in the modern era, with only some old dinosaurs still possessing armour. The LCS, from my understanding, has kevlar layering on the inside of the hull and superstructure to protect crew and equipment in the event of a small arms engagement, something pretty well unthinkable 20 years ago.
In the event of a major conflict against a parity opponent, every modern navy will be scrambling wildly for the old textbooks. We have all grown up on a steady diet of littoral combat, MIO and HADR, not blue water combat. There are many lessons willfully forgotten, which are really only useful in a parity conflict. Most navies still practice these procedures, but only half-heartedly, which will make the next major blue water conflict tragic indeed.
The RN also seems to generally prefer to have the slower smaller vessels have anti-mining capabilities so while there are only 3-4 OPVs there are a lot of minehunters and minesweepers.
<snip>
Compared to most equivalent or peer navies, I feel the RN has a tradition and on going role of distant patrolling and commerce protection for the size. The other European powers tend to be more focused on local protection or at least only deploying to where there are friendly bases while the USN is 1) huge and 2) feels more built around large multi-ship expeditionary or strike forces. The SSNs are the best tool for this sort of cruising in a lot of ways but suffer sometimes from their lack of visibility in the same way that their invisibility means that we can have them potentially be in lots of places and no one will know until the torpedo, Harpoon or Tomahawk hits.
The RN has a lot invested in the seas, and the quickest way to neuter them would be mine their ports, which is a lot cheaper and easier to do than clearing said mines, hence why the RN has such a large MCM capability. Somewhat similar to Australia. :-)
The RN also has a totally different history and tradition to the USN, which largely descends from it. The USN has been maintained at a wartime level, unlike the RN which uses the traditional European method of rapid construction when a conflict becomes imminent. Philosophically they two are at opposite ends of the readiness scale, and there is merit to both.
-
This is from wiki about Batch 2 River Class OPV.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/OPVinfographic.jpg)
Those extra four knots of speed will compensate for having three hulls instead of four
Not...
-
Those extra four knots of speed will compensate for having three hulls instead of four
Not...
RN doesn't have the headcount for great expansion; QE and POW aren't gonna crew themselves. That said, there are actually 4 River-B1s in service (my mistake earlier); HMS Clyde is the Falklands guard ship. 5 River-B2s are planned to replace the 4 River-B1s; work on the 5th B2 is already begun.
-
New shot of HMS Queen Elizabeth taking to the seas
-
The QE looks weird from the back.
-
not sure if 2 carriers running next to each other, or 1 QE boat.... :P
-
That angle reminds me of two gold retrievers sticking their heads out of window of a car.
-
She’s got HUGE...tracts of landing space.
-
Plans are being made by the US Navy to use production of the Columbia Class SSBN as basis for the eventual replacement for the Ohio-Class SSGNs that are on the verge of retirement.
I do think it's great idea. Given the stagnation going on in development of replacement platforms in my view of getting right ship made for the job. Navy formed a committee who discussed the matter and frankly the write up in the USNI's article (http://Navy formed a committee who discussed the matter and frankly the write up in the USNI's article) on it was impressive to a no-body civilian like me. I served and always watched navy development as hobby.
In the mean time, their discussing using a additional mid section being slipped into the upcoming Virginia Class SSNs they got scheduled.
Here is the USS Ohio, being serviced by Ship Tender.
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=42603)
-
Looks like the wrecks of thre Yamashiro, Fuso and destrpyers that went down in Surigao Strait in 1994 have been found
"I am now pleased to say I can now announce the fact that most of the Imperial Japanese wrecks have been located. I have seen some of the preliminary sonar imagery myself. These include battleship FUSO, and destroyers MICHISHIO and YAMAGUMO, and what appears to be ASAGUMO. Much more news will be forthcoming for the 73rd Anniversary commemoration on Leyte this week, and the news is good. These wrecks had been located over a period of time since the Project began but only now have various matters progressed far enough to permit this announcement. Stay tuned to this thread for further as I will post here as learn more. Some surprises are already extant -- FUSO' did break up (as the collapse of the pagoda in the book had implied) and MICHISHIO is further north than YAMAGUMO as half-expected. As for YAMASHIRO there is slight indication from earlier investigation she is not upside down, but that was a separate venture and details are unclear. As a point of further interest, it appears even PT-493 may have been located. This was the only U.S. unit lost in the Battle."
http://propnturret.com/tully/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2812
-
Here is the USS Ohio, being serviced by Ship Tender.
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=42603)
In this case, you can see the modification made to the forward superstructure for the DDS supports, and topside operations typical to the class before lifelines are up.
-
I saw this picture today and immediately thought of posting it here. Oh, well...things off of my to do list.
-
- six "local theater forces" - based at the four overseas theaters and the French Mediterranean (Toulon) and Atlantic (Brest) ports. Each would consist of by standard a B2M support/patrol vessel (or comparable) and two large offshore patrol ships plus possibly smaller assets for inshore patrol and - see below - possibly a third-rank frigate (currently Floreal).
As a P.S. to this, since i forgot about this:
Effectively you can treat these French "local theater forces" as their equivalent to the offshore component of a coastguard. The numbers are pretty standard for European navies operating like this, in most cases you get around 4 offshore patrol ships based together for a single "theater" (for the French the d'Entrecasteaux B2M count against this, they're used for patrol too). These ships, for European navies, are for the most part the equivalent of USCG WMECs and WHECs, lightly armed and intended for policing and watch and rescue duties first and foremost.
In Germany these assets are operated by a civilian coastguard (a cooperation of the Federal Police with other agencies), not by the Navy. They operate similar-sized groups in the North Sea and Baltic Sea respectively - with a total of 6 OPVs and 2 SWATH 1000-ton customs cruisers in addition to smaller inshore patrol boats.
It should be noted that the French assets - like most navy patrol assets - are not part of the European Border and Coast Guard - unlike the German patrol assets.
-
Lifeboat Bon Accord based in Aberdeen, Scotland
-
Plans are being made by the US Navy to use production of the Columbia Class SSBN as basis for the eventual replacement for the Ohio-Class SSGNs that are on the verge of retirement.
I do think it's great idea. Given the stagnation going on in development of replacement platforms in my view of getting right ship made for the job. Navy formed a committee who discussed the matter and frankly the write up in the USNI's article (http://Navy formed a committee who discussed the matter and frankly the write up in the USNI's article) on it was impressive to a no-body civilian like me. I served and always watched navy development as hobby.
In the mean time, their discussing using a additional mid section being slipped into the upcoming Virginia Class SSNs they got scheduled.
Here is the USS Ohio, being serviced by Ship Tender.
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=42603)
Were those bulges part of the SSGN update or have they always been there?
-
https://imgur.com/gallery/s41h6ZF
More NOPE courtesy of waves.
-
More NOPE courtesy of waves.
that moment when Poseidon himself just says HOLD MY BEER.
-
https://imgur.com/gallery/s41h6ZF
More NOPE courtesy of waves.
That reminds me of a Bight crossing, I went up to the bridge to get the weather, looked out the windows to only see blue with little threads of white foam in it...
Nope, I'm going back down to my nice, safe Operations Room.
Another fun voyage, this time across the Indian Ocean heading back to Australia, this is what we saw from the bridge wing:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/7179966329/in/photostream/
-
Rough ride for the HMAS Anzac. I forgot the those ways make sure ships disappear almost like submarines. :o
-
That reminds me of a Bight crossing, I went up to the bridge to get the weather, looked out the windows to only see blue with little threads of white foam in it...
Nope, I'm going back down to my nice, safe Operations Room.
Another fun voyage, this time across the Indian Ocean heading back to Australia, this is what we saw from the bridge wing:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/7179966329/in/photostream/
"Hey guys! Check out my Submarine impression!"
"Anzac no!"
"ANZAC YES!"
-
"Anzac no!"
"ANZAC YES!"
Do they have a ship's motto? Because that needs to be it. ;D
-
More Boomer Pron, this time from Undersea Warfare Magazine:
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23319238_1755569871151110_8026388313346454251_n.jpg?oh=66fd809c5324c1b5f6dcea149146c383&oe=5A9AA5D1)
Here's PCU Gerogia (SSBN-729) having been launched this day in 1982, next to PCU Rhode Island (SSBN-730) at Electric Boat.
But wasn't the USS Henry M. Jackson commissioned as SSBN-730?
Yep. The boat was renamed in 1983 to honor the late Senator, before commissioning, for those superstitious.
-
Were those bulges part of the SSGN update or have they always been there?
Sorry I wasn't clear earlier, but the bulges are part of the SSGN update. At PSNS, I heard them called the 'broad shoulders'.
-
Sorry I wasn't clear earlier, but the bulges are part of the SSGN update. At PSNS, I heard them called the 'broad shoulders'.
Aren't those related to the SEAL Team/Commando spaces they added to the ship?
Here's PCU Gerogia (SSBN-729) having been launched this day in 1982, next to PCU Rhode Island (SSBN-730) at Electric Boat.
But wasn't the USS Henry M. Jackson commissioned as SSBN-730?
Yep. The boat was renamed in 1983 to honor the late Senator, before commissioning, for those superstitious.
SSBN-740 became the Rhode Island. The Jackson is now the oldest Ballistic Submarine (in it's original configuration carrying Trident Missiles.).
-
Aren't those related to the SEAL Team/Commando spaces they added to the ship?
SSBN-740 became the Rhode Island. The Jackson is now the oldest Ballistic Submarine (in it's original configuration carrying Trident Missiles.).
He could tell you, but then he'd have to kill you
And to change track, here is an image of the USS Mason
-
and here's a gunboat from the US Civil War - the USS Lexington - found when looking at the Wikipedia page on the Battle of Belmont on Wikipedia
-
Aren't those related to the SEAL Team/Commando spaces they added to the ship?
Possibly. I was never on any of those boats, but I think it is related to the DDS's and related supplies. The area's a free flood space anyway, so it could be additional buoyancy compensation.
-
Something SEALs and Commandos also using is the MK VI Patrol Boats...for insertion purposes.
(http://navaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/US-Navy-to-Get-Two-More-Mk-VI-Patrol-Boats-from-SBI.png)
-
Note the very COTS shelter on the flying bridge for the MK VI PB.
-
COTS?
I blame Wrangler's ellipsis, all I'm coming up with are dirty acronyms.
-
Commercial Off The Shelf
As opposed to MOTS - Military Off The Shelf.
-
Indeed. I have to wonder if that came with the boat, or if the crew put it in themselves. :)
-
The image of the wiki, shows the Mk VI without the flying bridge.
Maybe it's option?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/US_Navy_Coastal_Riverine_Group_1_Coastal_Command_Boat_off_San_Diego_2013.JPG)
The older Mk V was replaced by the VIs, but their not as easily transportable. Since the 57 ton Mk V is C-5 Galaxy airlift able. I guess it's not as important to be able send them that quickly. The wiki page says the older ships are still in service despite the Mk VI's being it's replacement.
The Older Mk V
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/US_Navy_090428-N-4205W-840_MARK_V_Special_Operations_Craft.jpg)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/ce33e44232071816fc761e83db39e602/tumblr_oz3lu12P1z1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The Chilean coast defence Battleship Captain Prat.
-
Wow. Even for a the pre-dreadnought, i won't have thought the Pratt was a Battleship.
-
Wow. Even for a the pre-dreadnought, i won't have thought the Pratt was a Battleship.
The Chilean's classed her as a battleship, even though she was barely the size of an armoured cruiser for the period and about as well protected and armed as one.
-
Coast-defense battleships often weren't very big- they really were classed as such because a 'cruiser' (as defined by the day) was a scout/raider vessel, which obviously these ships (slightly slower than a gimped Urbanmech - no, seriously) were never going to do. So it's more of a classification of role than of size in this kind of case. It wasn't until the post-WWI treaties that ship types were clearly defined across navies by size and gun caliber, and even then the definitions could vary wildly (see: 'frigate')
-
Reading the wiki article she actually looks pretty good for the time. 4x 9", 8x 5", pretty good speed, seemingly pretty decent armor. I don't think she was a defensive ship when new, thought that obviously changed as technology advanced.
-
The image of the wiki, shows the Mk VI without the flying bridge.
Maybe it's option?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/US_Navy_Coastal_Riverine_Group_1_Coastal_Command_Boat_off_San_Diego_2013.JPG)
The older Mk V was replaced by the VIs, but their not as easily transportable. Since the 57 ton Mk V is C-5 Galaxy airlift able. I guess it's not as important to be able send them that quickly. The wiki page says the older ships are still in service despite the Mk VI's being it's replacement.
The Older Mk V
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/US_Navy_090428-N-4205W-840_MARK_V_Special_Operations_Craft.jpg)
The canopy is likely permanent fit, but able to be dismounted, a lot of those things are to save on wear.
The Mark Vs were awesome to see running about, such zippy little creatures.
-
How about some JMSDF love?
(https://s1.postimg.org/7krwz1c0rj/96_O2ua_Z.jpg)
-
Battleship / Carrier Hyuga in 1945 and water logged.
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=42671)
In better times in 1943 after her refit.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Battleship-carrier_Ise.jpg)
-
I have to wonder how much they made leasing out office space in that high rise...
-
Would just post the picture but I'm rubbish at this sort of thing
Ones to look at are Numbers Nine and Ten...
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=65945
-
Would just post the picture but I'm rubbish at this sort of thing
Ones to look at are Numbers Nine and Ten...
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=65945
here let me help you with that
Pic from USS Essex of a kamikaze squarely hitting USS Enterprise's forward aircraft lift. Okinawa, 1945.
(https://s33.postimg.org/c4e84o37j/26498487709_f5fa65c4af_z.jpg)
(https://s33.postimg.org/3yw66iue7/38243049382_231ec6e833_z.jpg)
Another view. Yes, that IS the lift platform rocketing upward.
(https://s33.postimg.org/9lsj4epbj/Enterprise_hit_by_Kamikaze_piloted_by_Lt_Shunsuke_Tomiyasu_off_O.jpg)
-
...ow. #P
-
here let me help you with that
Pic from USS Essex of a kamikaze squarely hitting USS Enterprise's forward aircraft lift. Okinawa, 1945.
(https://s33.postimg.org/c4e84o37j/26498487709_f5fa65c4af_z.jpg)
(https://s33.postimg.org/3yw66iue7/38243049382_231ec6e833_z.jpg)
Another view. Yes, that IS the lift platform rocketing upward.
(https://s33.postimg.org/9lsj4epbj/Enterprise_hit_by_Kamikaze_piloted_by_Lt_Shunsuke_Tomiyasu_off_O.jpg)
Much appreciated matey
And thanks for adding the context
Awful times for all involved...
-
I'm amazed that (Wikipedia reports at least) apparently less than 100 men killed and wounded from that
I don't mean to minimise the horror but would not have been surprised if hundreds had been killed
-
I'm amazed that (Wikipedia reports at least) apparently less than 100 men killed and wounded from that
I don't mean to minimise the horror but would not have been surprised if hundreds had been killed
The explosion was more or less channeled upward by the elevator well itself. They were lucky the elevator itself didn't come crashing down on Big E.
-
Such a horrible blast from the Enterprise. I think that was the won that put it out of commission for the rest of the war.
-
USS Franklin took pretty bad hits during the war too.
I was fortunate have a shop teacher who told us stories of WW2, including he was a crew member of a escorting destroyer to task force that included the Franklin. It was pretty horrible from what i remember him telling me.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/USS_Santa_Fe_%28CL-60%29_fighting_fires_aboard_the_burning_USS_Franklin_%28CV-13%29_on_19_March_1945_%2880-G-373734%29.jpg)
EDIT: I forgot to mention the USS Santa Fe (CL-60) is along side her to help put the fire out.
-
USS Franklin took pretty bad hits during the war too.
I was fortunate have a shop teacher who told us stories of WW2, including he was a crew member of a escorting destroyer to task force that included the Franklin. It was pretty horrible from what i remember him telling me.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/USS_Santa_Fe_%28CL-60%29_fighting_fires_aboard_the_burning_USS_Franklin_%28CV-13%29_on_19_March_1945_%2880-G-373734%29.jpg)
EDIT: I forgot to mention the USS Santa Fe (CL-60) is along side her to help put the fire out.
"Official Navy casualty figures for the 19 March 1945 fire totaled 724 killed and 265 wounded. Nevertheless, casualty numbers have been updated as new records are discovered. A recent count by Franklin historian and researcher Joseph A. Springer brings total 19 March 1945 casualty figures to 807 killed and more than 487 wounded. Franklin had suffered the most severe damage and highest casualties experienced by any U.S. fleet carrier that survived World War II"
Just awful
-
One of the things that I find interesting in the Pacific War is how tough American ships had become by the end of the war- not just the ships, but more importantly the crews' ability to deal with major damage. Look at the first year of the war, the kind of damage that put down the Lexington, the Northampton, etc. - and then compare it to late war incidents like the Franklin. A much newer ship, for sure, but that kind of damage would have been fatal a few years earlier.
Interestingly, old ships became much tougher as the war went on- not just thanks to modifications, but the crew. The torpedo that crippled the battleship Pennsylvania late in the war nearly sank her, but the crew managed to fight to keep her afloat and get her home. It's interesting to wonder if she'd have survived a hit like that in mid-1942. The ship itself hadn't changed all that much in terms of protection- but the damage control skills of the crew certainly had.
Something to consider: In 1942, the Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp, and Hornet were all lost, with Saratoga and Enterprise surviving (and both being beat up a few times that year). By the end of the war, the only other American aircraft carrier lost from the blue-water navy was the Princeton (I'm excluding CVEs since they were basically merchant hulls with flat tops). That's it. As the war progressed, the kamikaze became a factor, and Japan became more and more desperate in their attacks, the only carrier to actually sink was Princeton. Many were hit, some crippled, but none actually lost. No American battleship was lost following Pearl Harbor, despite a few that suffered major damage (Pennsylvania, North Carolina, etc.) It's quite the feat, really- hurting an American ship was one thing, but actually sinking it had become all but impossible.
-
This is book on the crew of USS Franklin.
https://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Comes-Home-Hoehling/dp/B0006C9ENQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510343432&sr=8-1&keywords=Franklin+Comes+home
-
American damage control was pretty much second to none. The USN also learned a lot of painful lessons early on. The loss of the USS Lexington for example was caused by fuel vapor leaking into her hangar and then ignighting in a fuel air explosion. The fuel had leaked down from her aircraft fuelling system that ran across the top of the hangar.
The USS Yorktown's damage control teams then started the habit of purging the fuel lines with nitrogen when an enemy was incoming, and this became standard practice on USN carriers immediately. And it probably saved the USS Yorktown from a nasty hangar fire at Midway. They also learned from the loss of the Wasp and the torpedoing of the North Carolina (from the same salvo that claimed the Wasp) and kept on applying what it learned.
This was a marked difference from the IJN who didn't place anywhere near the same emphasis on damage control as the USN. ON a USN Warship, EVERYONE was expected to be able to help with the damage control and had recived suitable training to a greater or lesser degree in this regard. With the IJN, they had far smaller numbers of trained damage control teams, and it was these teams that were expected to do all the damage control duties.
The IJN also placed a far heavier emphasis on its junior officers, with them having to do the jobs of what a senior sailor would do on a US or UK warship of the period.
Combine this with ships that tended to be built rather light and the IJN ships were generally rather more fragile than their USN opponents and they didn't really get a chance to learn from their losses due to heavy casualties.
-
The ships and the crew have become very tough and better designed over the years. The Franklin was the only ship not to be fully repaired after WW2 as WW2 ended right after. I think the wooden flight decks were a great and terrible thing. The wooden decks were easy to be repaired and didnt need a full shipyard to repair, but the amount of damage to them was so much.
The Yorktown was mostly repaired in a short time between Coral Sea and Midway that surprised Japan.
-
The ships and the crew have become very tough and better designed over the years. The Franklin was the only ship not to be fully repaired after WW2 as WW2 ended right after. I think the wooden flight decks were a great and terrible thing. The wooden decks were easy to be repaired and didnt need a full shipyard to repair, but the amount of damage to them was so much.
The Yorktown was mostly repaired in a short time between Coral Sea and Midway that surprised Japan.
Better that they never followed the British's Armored Carrier concept.
-
Better that they never followed the British's Armored Carrier concept.
Different navy and different reasons
http://www.armouredcarriers.com/
-
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/531fdb48e4b0e8fbe6259952/t/54025aede4b0903f2ff6c282/1409440504124/WWIINavalDamage6-yorktown.jpg?format=750w)
USS Franklin's damage report drawing
-
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/531fdb48e4b0e8fbe6259952/t/54025aede4b0903f2ff6c282/1409440504124/WWIINavalDamage6-yorktown.jpg?format=750w)
USS Franklin's damage report drawing
That's actually not that bad. Sure the fire is huge, unbelievably so, but over all it's fairly localised and is all about managing people and air. The issue would be how graceful the initial evacuation of the damaged areas was, and the presence of fire main. All of her power, fire pumps and de-watering pumps would likely be intact, and all of the portable DC equipment forward would still be intact, so it becomes an issue of containment and letting it burn out/actively fighting the fire.
HMS Nottingham's DC board after her grounding shows a much grimmer picture in terms of ships survivability. (Attached)
-
Wow that is a lot of damage.
-
C'mon, this is getting ridiculous (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-13/sydney-ferry-will-actually-be-called-ferry-mcferryface/9146446) :-[
-
Carrier Strike Group 11
USS Nimitz (CVN-68) Nimitz
Destroyer Squadron 9
USS Princeton (CG-59) Ticonderoga
USS Howard (DDG-83) Arleigh Burke
USS Shoup (DDG-86) Arleigh Burke
USS Pinckey (DDG-91) Arleigh Burke
USS Kidd (DDG-100) Arleigh Burke
Carrier Strike Group 9 consist of the Following
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) Nimitz
Destroyer Squadron 23
USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) Ticonderoga
USS Halsey (DDG-97) Arleigh Burke
USS Sampson (DDG-102) Arleigh Burke
USS Preble (DDG-88) Arleigh Burke
Carrier Strike Group 5 consist of the following:
USS Ronald Regan (CVN-76) Nimitz
Destroyer Squadron 15
USS Shiloh- (CG-67) Ticonderoga
USS Barry (DDG-52) Arleigh Burke
USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) Arleigh Burke (This ship is currently out for repairs for damage that was caused in the summer. Not a part of the fleet)
USS Campbell (DDG-) Arleigh Burke
USS Mustin (DDG-89) Arleigh Burke
Not shown: up to a half dozen Los Angeles or Virginia class, JMSDF Hyuuga and Ashigara and their escorts, and an Australian detachment.
This is, I should add, all of the US flattops in service right now. That's a huge concentration of capability.
-
C'mon, this is getting ridiculous (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-13/sydney-ferry-will-actually-be-called-ferry-mcferryface/9146446) :-[
No it isn't
-
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Dragon take to the sea
-
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Dragon in port
-
Nice piece of nose art! ;)
-
Its so surprising to me that Dragon been able retain that ship tattoo. I figured the boring bean counters or rules lawyers would make them conform to regulations.
-
C'mon, this is getting ridiculous (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-13/sydney-ferry-will-actually-be-called-ferry-mcferryface/9146446) :-[
It was funny once...
-
The one...the only...(OK, there are actually three of them)
(https://gdb.voanews.com/0E05A1D1-652F-4BA3-9BF1-F46B7E4D9755_cx0_cy6_cw0_w1597_n_r1_s.jpg)
-
It was funny once...
Agree with you there. Next think you know people will be naming their tank Tanky McTankFace . . . >:D
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4463/37418651071_10431edc97_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Z1ynjp)IMAG0326 (https://flic.kr/p/Z1ynjp) by f15cflyer79 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/13447793@N08/), on Flickr
From B1Bflyer's diorama http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=58939.0 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=58939.0)
-
Nah, the inevitable result will be someone naming their face Facy McFaceFace.
-
Its so surprising to me that Dragon been able retain that ship tattoo. I figured the boring bean counters or rules lawyers would make them conform to regulations.
it's the Welsh flag's dragon. you don't want to anger the Welsh, do you? bad enough they got left out of the Union jack.
-
*snip*
This is, I should add, all of the US flattops in service right now. That's a huge concentration of capability.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "in service". USNI's article last week was talking about seven carriers being underway at the same time for the first time in years...
-
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "in service". USNI's article last week was talking about seven carriers being underway at the same time for the first time in years...
Generally, 1/3 is on active station/mission, 1/3 in ports for downtime/turnover, and 1/3 in yards.
-
Underway is about as far from "downtime" as I can imagine...
-
Underway is about as far from "downtime" as I can imagine...
Ain't that the truth.
-
And hey, happy belated birthday brother!
-
When you have 10 carriers in active. 3 floating together, I thought 4 were active at all times?
-
Found the link to the 7 underway story: https://usni.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e971c577684d30446b18f75bf&id=750cfa8008&e=5a4bc92f6a
-
When you have 10 carriers in active. 3 floating together, I thought 4 were active at all times?
I believe you're confusing "active" or "in service" with "deployed". There are typically three deployed at all times although that has dropped to two on occasion if I recall.
-
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
Reagan, Nimitz, and Roosevelt are all under active deployment, currently near Korean waters. Reagan will probably transition to a downtime cycle, she's been active and patrolling off and on for close to four years. Nimitz and Roosevelt seem fairly fresh by the look of their workups, should stick around a while.
Stennis and Truman are doing pre-deployment training and crew certifications, and without stepping into rule 4 territory I'm just going to say that recent news means they're going to spend a VERY serious time doing it. Unknown at this time how long that will take, probably not too much longer since that's been going several months already. With Reagan likely to cycle out of availability, one or both may take her place soon.
Vinson and Bush just finished their major patrols and homeported last month, there'll be some maintenance cycles and some crew shuffling as well as training in the near future. Not sure how much longer they'll be out before they go into major maintenance cycles, at least the last 3 1/2 years shows sustained major operations and nothing significant for overhaul.
Meanwhile Eisenhower is in maintenance and workup states, will return to the fleet in March for training and preparation. Lincoln just had her four year overhaul and refuel and is being restored into service, while Washington's just started its four year and won't be back until 2021 sometime, and Ford should deploy then after fitting out, training, testing, and significant workups.
-
I think we should monitor the situation and look on pictures instead! When people weren't adding jokes for names of ships.
I give you HMS Raglan, British Monitor. The HMS Raglan fought in the First World War. Her main 14inch twin barrel guns were intended for the Greek Battleship Salamis, which due to the German blockade ended up not being built. The ship was intended as bombardment ship, but during the war it got into a real naval battle, and resulted in the ship being sunk with 127 lives lost in the Third Battle of Gaza.
(http://www.avalanchepress.com/monitors_americans_files/M3_Raglan.jpg)
Interesting enough, the ship was originally to been named the Robert E Lee, after the CSA general. However the neutrality of the United States during the early stages of the war lead to number renaming of the ship.
-
USS Oscar Austin. I just only noticed that the Phalanx mount is seated behind what looks like a 1-meter embrasure (for lack of better word) of sorts on three sides, with an open side only on the forrard facing. Looks a tad odd.
larger size link here: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4515/38259948692_d638ea3139_o.jpg
(https://s8.postimg.org/soa335mdh/38259948692_d638ea3139_o.jpg)
It was barely funny once...
edited.
-
The perspective may be playing tricks on me here, but it looks like if one were to mount the Phalanx flush with the deck, the radome would be sticking up far enough to obstruct the view from some of the bridge windows. I would guess that is why it isn't higher. Now, why is there the raised deck area around it? Probably matches up better with the position of the decks inside the ship. That's my guess.
-
USS Oscar Austin. I just only noticed that the Phalanx mount is seated behind what looks like a 1-meter embrasure (for lack of better word) of sorts on three sides, with an open side only on the forrard facing. Looks a tad odd.
larger size link here: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4515/38259948692_d638ea3139_o.jpg (https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4515/38259948692_d638ea3139_o.jpg)
pic snip
edited.
The perspective may be playing tricks on me here, but it looks like if one were to mount the Phalanx flush with the deck, the radome would be sticking up far enough to obstruct the view from some of the bridge windows. I would guess that is why it isn't higher. Now, why is there the raised deck area around it? Probably matches up better with the position of the decks inside the ship. That's my guess.
Looking at the higher res picture, I don't think there is a significant lip as there are quite deep shadows as the sun is quite far on the port side and there is little or no shadow from the apparent rim of the part around the CIWS so the radar and gun are all able to "see" over it
-
Looking at the higher res picture, I don't think there is a significant lip as there are quite deep shadows as the sun is quite far on the port side and there is little or no shadow from the apparent rim of the part around the CIWS so the radar and gun are all able to "see" over it
The Burkes FWD CIWS can indeed fire in a wide arc centred on right ahead. :-)
Here are the grand old dames of the RAN, in their prime:
-
Where's HMAS Melbourne?
-
She properly on a beer run.
-
Where's HMAS Melbourne?
Accounts vary, but I believe she was off responding to a distress call. I was on the one at the far end, mighty Adelaide. :-)
I was an AB at the time, and didn't care about much except doing my watches, and the next port visit.
-
A Dutch Minehunters team has discovered the wreck of a old Imperial German Submarine, the UC-69 (http://navaltoday.com/2017/11/14/dutch-minehunter-discovers-wreck-of-german-imperial-navy-submarine/).
The ship was lost during a mission laying mines. A another submarine, U-96 accidently collided with it.
Picture of couple UC II-Class Minelaying Subs.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/SM_U_35_Hafen.jpg)
-
Here are the grand old dames of the RAN, in their prime:
That is a great photo. I have never seen that one before.
I like VLS and other upgrades they have done to keep them going until the AWDs arrive.
-
That is a great photo. I have never seen that one before.
I like VLS and other upgrades they have done to keep them going until the AWDs arrive.
They were great ships to serve on, every navy that has them has really loved them. Not the most heavily armed, not the most economical, but big enough to get the job done, small enough to go just about anywhere, responsive enough to be tasked with just about anything, it will be a sad day when HMAS Newcastle decommissions. End of an era, same as with the DEs and DDGs. Few Australian ships have done as much as the humble Adelaide class FFG.
As the USN put it, they are the "Little ships that could".
Now, another one from archives, the RN Battleship HMS Queen Elizabeth
-
Look at the stillness of the water here! That's almost mirror-quality stuff.
HMS Coventry in Hong Kong harbor, 1980.
-
Handsome ship, and a very nice picture.
-
nice find, JadeHellbringer!
-
That is a great photo of the visitor.
-
The last time warships were recognisably warships, and not pyramids with a knob on the end ::)
-
Or ships with two pyramids
-
Just a temple
(http://www.seaforces.org/usnships/ddg/DDG-1000_DAT/DDG-1000-USS-Zumwalt-photo-0051.jpg)
-
Searching for "pyramid warships" and I saw this photo the Zumwalt with its guns extended don't think I've seen that before in other pictures
-
Very well, welcome to the cathedral. Our Lady of Weapons and Antennas.
(Russian cruiser Kerch at Sevastopol)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Kerch2007Sevastopol.jpg)
-
Followed up by Her Majesty, Lady Excessive Anti-Ship Missiles.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AX_mBNTb1CY/UGkKKuHKZdI/AAAAAAAAAX4/aGY-ZRFljec/s1600/Slava_Class_Cruiser_Moskva_jeffhead_com.jpg)
-
Very well, welcome to the cathedral. Our Lady of Weapons and Antennas.
Let me fix that for you:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--T_jUB2oh--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/cn6lc0emkx8g56hkyt9d.jpg)
-
Nooooope. Too many VLS launchers, hidden weaponry disqualifies her! (That and being radioactive messes more dangerous to their crews than NATO warships, there's that too) ;)
-
Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh splotila naveki velikaya rus!
But now the Russians are joining the knob-tipped pyramid game too, as shown by Sovershenny, the latest Steregushchy-class corvette
(https://s33.postimg.org/y5moqa04f/Capture.png)
And another American pyramid-head nearing completion
(https://s33.postimg.org/vzsdw7c7z/160907-_N-_N0101-001.jpg)
Excessive Anti-Ship Missiles.
Ain't no such thing, pardner.
-
Let me fix that for you:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--T_jUB2oh--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/cn6lc0emkx8g56hkyt9d.jpg)
Oddly enough, it looks a little like the South Dakota class, with that almost mountain-shaped superstructure. It lacks guns, sadly.
-
Actually, from that perspective...
(http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/photos/cruisers/admiral_scheer/may_1937.jpg)
-
Oddly enough, it looks a little like the South Dakota class, with that almost mountain-shaped superstructure. It lacks guns, sadly.
I love the way the Kirov class ships looked. Such clean lines for a Russian ship vs some of the other ones. A lot more ships are using pyramid shape and they dont look as good.
-
Properly be no further ships like it sadly. Russians don't have the budget build a destroyer similar to it, never mind cruiser.
US doesn't seem to be interesting in making a cruiser size vessel, (Zumwalts don't count in my book...), it's all focus on all-in-one large combatant (aka DDG-51 Class).
I used to be a ship junky, loving new designs coming out. Nowadays, their not so cool as they used to be.
-
Matter of taste. I rather like the current generation of ships, with their cleaner lines. Zumwalts are an extreme case, but they're growing on me. Slowly.
It helps when I look at a Sea Pyramid(all hail...), and assume that it's actually powered by blood magic. >:D
-
Alright, how's this: a Skjold-class missile boat of His Norwegian Majesty's Navy. It has a 76mm Oto Melara gun and 8 Kongsberg NSMs hidden in the stern quarters.
(http://www.naval-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/09/Skjold_10.jpg)
(https://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2016/june/NSM_land_attack_strike_RNoN_Norway_3.jpg)
It helps when I look at a Sea Pyramid(all hail...), and assume that it's actually powered by blood magic. >:D
and some people incredulously questioned how Comstar ever created a techno-religion ::)
-
and some people incredulously questioned how Comstar ever created a techno-religion ::)
They just followed the formula created by Steve Jobs and the Apple-lyte >:D
-
Huh. I like the design. The hidden pop-up missiles are a neat feature. Well done, Scandinavian neo-Viking types!
-
The Stealth ships make things look very boring.
-
Well, Zumwalt's interior is interesting. Here picture of their bridge.
(https://static.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/1610/2939292/1000w_q95.jpg)
No more freezing your tail bone on the bridge wings!
-
The pyramid worship is better than our latest national efforts. I give you the Shell owned "Prelude" a floating Liquid Natural Gas processing plant, aka meccano ship.
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6506862-3x2-940x627.jpg)
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/USNS_Glomar_Explorer_%28T-AG-193%29.jpg/1200px-USNS_Glomar_Explorer_%28T-AG-193%29.jpg)
SS Glomar Explorer. Nothing to see here, just a plain old floating oil drilling ship. TOTALLY not a crane to salvage a sunk Soviet sub.. Honest guv.
-
I couldn't resist. (And tell me with a straight face this never happens)
-
I was expecting this given the interlocked consoles...
-
Could not resist either! :D
(https://s33.postimg.org/754r7at33/zumwalt_copy.png)
-
that's awesome new wallpaper here we come
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/USNS_Glomar_Explorer_%28T-AG-193%29.jpg/1200px-USNS_Glomar_Explorer_%28T-AG-193%29.jpg)
SS Glomar Explorer. Nothing to see here, just a plain old floating oil drilling ship. TOTALLY not a crane to salvage a sunk Soviet sub.. Honest guv.
I've never heard for sure if it's true or not, but there's a story that in the weeks following the Kursk's loss, Glomar Explorer was moved to several different mooring sites within Suisun Bay... officially to perform tasks like underwater-hull maintenance and such, and unofficially to remind anyone looking down from certain satellites that in case you want that thing brought back up to the surface, we know a guy...
-
Sub construction soviet style
-
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015799.jpg (http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015799.jpg)
Linking over to this one so one can click and zoom in. The two ships prominent in the center are the battleships California and Tennessee, in Philadelphia circa 1946. The next drydock past them contains two heavy cruisers, Los Angeles and Chicago. And of course, in the lower-right is the South Dakota.
-
Wow, i never seen two battleships in one drydock before. What sort ship was the dock intended? Like planned Montana Class or something?
-
Wow, i never seen two battleships in one drydock before. What sort ship was the dock intended? Like planned Montana Class or something?
Drydocks tend to be pretty massive, really- after all, it's not that it needs to be big enough to hold a battleship, it's that it needs to be able to hold at least one, as well as have room for equipment and such to move around and under the hull, braces for the ship, etc.- so it needs to be considerably larger than the ship in it. (Another good example is the drydock at Pearl Harbor that during the attack held the Pennsylvania and a pair of ill-fated destroyers with plenty of room to spare, or the famous St. Nazaire drydock that could have supported the Bismarck if she'd made it there.)
Another good example of what I'm talking about is this view of the USS Gerald Ford during construction:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/30/article-2439212-18675C7800000578-687_634x422.jpg)
See how much space is around her? Remember, that's a truly gigantic warship, and there's far more space there than the ship actually needs. So in the battleship example, sure- you can fit two if you need to (particularly since the WWI-era ships weren't as long as the later stuff)- maybe not ideal, but both were being prepped for mothballs at the time, and space in the naval yards was at a premium at this point with all the ships coming back from wartime service. Some of the aerial photos of places like Bremerton, Suisun Bay, Philly, etc. are just staggering in the amount of ships laid up. Subs, destroyers, CVEs, landing ships, everything that had been used to defeat the Axis powers had to get retired, and had to go SOMEWHERE. It's only in the past couple of decades that they've finished up getting rid of some of that backlog.
-
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015799.jpg (http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015799.jpg)
Linking over to this one so one can click and zoom in. The two ships prominent in the center are the battleships California and Tennessee, in Philadelphia circa 1946. The next drydock past them contains two heavy cruisers, Los Angeles and Chicago. And of course, in the lower-right is the South Dakota.
The South Dakota looks massive when compared to the Tennessee and Pennsylvania
-
The South Dakota looks massive when compared to the Tennessee and Pennsylvania
Something like 80 feet difference or so if I remember right- but only a couple thousand tons heavier. Advances in engine technology in particular, as well as the novel (if cramped) idea of putting the boilers above the engines rather than in-line as with most ships, kept the SoDaks pretty short compared to contemporaries like the King George V or North Carolina. Which was the idea- a shorter ship means a shorter armor belt, and that's where most of the weight is on a ship like that.
BuShips built very good, if flawed, ships in the North Carolinas, and the idea to design a triple-16 inch mount that fit in the space intended for quad-14s allowed them to upgun during construction- a very good move. But as with most American ships, they were designed to be armored against their own shellfire- in this case, against 14-inch shells. So the plan for the follow-ons was to armor against 16-inch, but keep in the treaty limits, and so weight had to drop somehow. Reducing the length but increasing the thickness of the armor was key, and to do that these became very cramped ships. Note that postwar, there were some plans to heavily modify North Carolina and Washington into landing ships and such, but none were ever considered seriously for the South Dakotas.
(Also, amusingly, the British had the same idea with the King George V- just in case Japan broke the rules, they included an easily-changed feature to improve the ships past the treaty limits. Where the Americans designed a way to get bigger guns, KGV got an extra strake of armor, making her impervious in theory to 16-inch fire. Certainly in their only situation where one took heavy-caliber shellfire- Prince of Wales against the Bismarck- the belt never really was tested, so it's hard to say how she would have stood up to it. Then again, the South Dakota was the only American to really get its armor tested, and same result- only one major-caliber hit was scored, which was stopped by barbette armor rather than the belt.)
Really, the North Carolina and KGV make for a fascinating comparison- a duel would have been very interesting.
-
. . . It helps when I look at a Sea Pyramid(all hail...) . . .
here you go, a REAL sea pyramid (and a swan-class cruiser ;D ):
-
Original Sea Pyramid.. sadly no longer with us.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/US_Navy_Sea_Shadow_stealth_craft.jpg/1200px-US_Navy_Sea_Shadow_stealth_craft.jpg)
-
here you go, a REAL sea pyramid (and a swan-class cruiser ;D ):
Where that from? (not the swan...)
-
Could not resist either! :D
(https://s33.postimg.org/754r7at33/zumwalt_copy.png)
Nah. Remember, the Zumwalt is commanded by Captain James A Kirk...well, at least until this past December:
http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg1000/Pages/USS-Zumwalt-Holds-Change-of-Command.aspx#.WhcdodtFy3s
-
Gotta cycle him shoreside for a while before his next command commissions in 2021.
-
Original Sea Pyramid.. sadly no longer with us.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/US_Navy_Sea_Shadow_stealth_craft.jpg/1200px-US_Navy_Sea_Shadow_stealth_craft.jpg)
Was she finally broken up? Last I heard, the Navy literally could not give her away.
-
4 years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185831/Declassified-170million-Cold-War-Stealth-boat-snapped-2-5million-condition-scrap-parts.html
No one wanted it.. Mainly because the navy insisted the barge go with it, and had a ton of other mandatory limits on the display agreements.
-
4 years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185831/Declassified-170million-Cold-War-Stealth-boat-snapped-2-5million-condition-scrap-parts.html
No one wanted it.. Mainly because the navy insisted the barge go with it, and had a ton of other mandatory limits on the display agreements.
Hate to have to say this, but the Navy wouldn't have had a say. That sort of decision is made by the DoD, not by the services.
It is a shame, but she was only really meant to be an experimental platform, and her progeny have spread across the planet, what more could a girl ask for?
-
Found something I meant to post quite some time back, when we were discussing missile boats and corvettes
Egyptian Ambassador III or Ezzat class: 600 tons, 76mm gun, 8 Harpoon SSMs, Phalanx CIWS, RAM SAMs
(https://s1.postimg.org/61peefxkj3/ambassador3.jpg)
Greek Roussen class: 580 tons, 76mm gun, 8 MM.40 Exocet SSMs, 2 30mm guns just aft of the mast, RAM SAMs
(https://s1.postimg.org/1indbgro5r/P67-_Roussen-02.jpg)
-
Well... if we're a bit unfair... South Africa calls their units of the below corvettes too.
Meko A200AN for Algeria, built in Germany. Being towed through the canal between Baltic and North Sea here.
(http://i.imgur.com/GAjM4PM.jpg)
127mm L64 main gun, two 30mm Seahawk A2 (above VLS and on hangar for 360-degree coverage), 16 Rbs15 Mk3 SSM, 32-cell VLS for Umkhonto IR SAM, two triple 324mm ASW torpedo tubes with MU90, four 32-cell TKWA MASS decoy launchers and a hangar for a Super Lynx.
On a ship the size of a LCS, less than twice the above Roussen in deckspace.
And her little sister, the German K130 class corvette (a Meko A100) Braunschweig in the same canal:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCI6JP3WsAIMz8-.jpg:large)
76mm main gun, two 27mm MLG27, 4 Rbs15 Mk3 SSM, 2 21-cell RAM SAM, two 32-cell TKWA MASS decoy launchers, mine racks for 34 sea mines and a hangar for two VTOL UAVs (which haven't been bought yet). In trials one of them has also added a 20 kW HEL laser module to one of the MLG27.
40% bigger than a Roussen.
-
Those are some angry little boats. Small boats with a huge punch.
-
Well... if we're a bit unfair... South Africa calls their units of the below corvettes too.
Meko A200AN for Algeria, built in Germany. Being towed through the canal between Baltic and North Sea here.
(http://i.imgur.com/GAjM4PM.jpg)
127mm L64 main gun, two 30mm Seahawk A2 (above VLS and on hangar for 360-degree coverage), 16 Rbs15 Mk3 SSM, 32-cell VLS for Umkhonto IR SAM, two triple 324mm ASW torpedo tubes with MU90, four 32-cell TKWA MASS decoy launchers and a hangar for a Super Lynx.
On a ship the size of a LCS, less than twice the above Roussen in deckspace.
Murphy's Dice on a Stick. Is there any bad news? A little red button underneath the gun or something?
-
Murphy's Dice on a Stick. Is there any bad news? A little red button underneath the gun or something?
They've been shopping around a bit in the last five years on top of that - and are probably one of the most diverse navies around:
- two German Meko A200AN corvettes/frigates (+2 options)
- three Chinese C28A corvettes/frigates (+ 3 options)
- two Russian Pr20832 Tigr corvettes (+4 options)
- two Russian Pr636M modernized Kilo submarines (adding to three older Kilos)
- a rebuild of the Italian San Giorgio small LPD (+1 option)
- three (used) Italian Lerici minehunters
The C28A carry a 76mm, two 30mm Type 730 CIWS, eight C-802 SSM, one 8-cell HQ-7 SAM, two triple 324mm ASW torpedo tubes and a hangar for a Super Lynx. The armament of the Pr20382 to my knowledge has never been announced (first unit supposed to be delivered this year still) but will be broadly in line with the C28A by capability and numbers; they might be carrying 16 SSM too though.
Both classes are also called corvettes, but are equally the size of a LCS - or the above Meko A200AN.
The last five-year acquisition round before that was for 21 (!) French-built 32m patrol boats... at least only carrying a single 30mm.
Here's their 8,800-ton Italian LPD bought in 2014:
(https://abload.de/img/abbasnpqps.png)
Can't go without overblown armament either of course - and of course entirely different weapon systems again.
76mm main gun, two 25mm, 16-cell VLS - behind island - for Aster 15 or Aster 30 (third 8-cell launcher not fitted; they carry Aster 15), two 20-cell SCLAR-H decoy launchers, hangar and flight deck for three AW101 or five Super Lynx. Three LCM, three LCVP and two speedboats carried, capacity is for 440 troops plus 15 tanks or 36 armoured vehicles. Uh, and for good measure the radar on these is the same as on the Italian Horizon AAW destroyers.
-
*raises an eyebrow* That's a pretty serious little navy Algeria is putting together. Risky, given the economic issues that country is facing.
-
It's not just the Navy, the rest of their military is getting similar upgrades. 80 modern Flankers, multiple battalions of S-300PMU2, scores of tanks, IFVs and APCs...
Beyond that, what's curious is mostly the mix. Just the missiles for those ships are sourced from China, Russia, Sweden, South Africa, France. And all the 30mm guns on the ships are pretty much in three different "30mm" calibers. They even maintain a limited own shipbuilding capacity at OMCN/CNE at Mers el Kebir despite all that shopping around, every decade or so ordering another missile corvette of the locally designed and built Djebel Chenoua class.
-
I think thats the most RBS missiles any 1 ship carries, but... Dear god, Swedish, European, Chinese, Russian AND South African missiles in one navy! Classic emerging 3rd-world military symptom; buy whats cheap and figure out who to run with later.
The LPD reminds me of the old Invincibles. The 76mm gun is incredibly pointless though, unless they really think she'll pull double duty as a patrol ship...!
Reportedly they will mount 8 P-800 Oniks (SS-N-26 Strobile) on the Tigrs... what the Slavas used to carry in those big side tubes!
-
The LPD reminds me of the old Invincibles. The 76mm gun is incredibly pointless though, unless they really think she'll pull double duty as a patrol ship...!
The Italian San Giorgios originally had the 76mm guns too until about 1999; on the first two units (San Giorgio and San Marco) they were later removed with the through deck expanded forward to the bow and those LCVP davits replaced with a sponson extending the flight deck sidewards, overall doubling the number of helicopter landing spots.
The third unit (San Giusto) did not go through this conversion and retains the 76mm; she's slightly larger, was ordered a few years later and is used mostly for training by the Italian Navy. Also won't be replaced by the two new LHDs that Italy is building. The new 20,000t LHDs will fit two 76mm and three 25mm btw; Italy uses the 76mm for CIWS with guided DART ammunition.
The Algerian LPD is pretty much an off-the-shelf buy. Fincantieri offers them like that as "Enhanced San Giusto" in their portfolio. They have an extra hull section behind the superstructure (which houses the VLS and has room for an extra speedboat), a smaller crew (152 vs 180) and different engines with one knot less top speed and less range (7000nm at 15kn vs 7500nm at 16kn).
Modified San Giorgio, looking rather more like a miniature Invincible:
(https://abload.de/img/image013-1499911601mnqhd.jpg)
By comparison though the San Giorgios are only frigate-sized at 133m - vs Invincible's 209m overall length.
-
Since we're talking about small ships with a lot of firepower.
How about this lovely 3,500 ton, nearly 70 meter long powerhouse I found. Capable of firing the equivalent of 2 tons of metal if she lets fly at an opponent.
(https://www.scrimshawgallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Geoff-Hunt-H.M.S.-Victory-1.jpg)
HMS Victory of course.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c1/8a/5c/c18a5ce66979b45967564fbd767cd0da.jpg)
-
IIRC, she wasn't the most powerful ship of her day, either.
-
IIRC, she wasn't the most powerful ship of her day, either.
One of the but probably not the most, there was dozens of 100 - 104 gun ships around at the time in French, Spanish and Engliish. The Santassima Trinidad was a unique 4 decker of 130 guns but she was reportedly a nightmare to manouvre and handled poorly, so the extra deck wasn't really worth it and its why the Spanish or no one else copied or repeated her. But Victory was certinally one of the most powerful ships of her day, and at Trafalgar she was an old lady too, at 46 years of age she wasn't the most modern three decker the RN had. But as the design had changed little she was perfectly fine in the line of Battle.
-
I wonder how they up kept wooden ships on high sea service for such a long time.
-
I wonder how they up kept wooden ships on high sea service for such a long time.
Well wooden ships if properly constructed and made from the right wood and cared for last an absurdly long time. And are remarkably tough. An old French ship of the line that the RN had as a sail training ship was sunk in 1949 via explosive charges and then several gun shots when she refused to sink. The RN had a very large and intricate dockyard system for maintaining their wooden sailing ships and this is what helped keep them around so long. Another old ship the first HMS Royal Soverign Ex Soverign of the Seas was over 50 years old and still a front line fighting ship when she was accidentally burned by a fire left on in the galleys.
-
Santassima Trinidad had more guns, so that first Broadside would of been scary but compared to the lack of training that the Spanish had over the British, the ship might of been a even match, with the lack of maneuverability and handling in the sea compared to the Victory.
-
Santassima Trinidad had more guns, so that first Broadside would of been scary but compared to the lack of training that the Spanish had over the British, the ship might of been a even match, with the lack of maneuverability and handling in the sea compared to the Victory.
For these ships of the line, it's not the first "volley" that decide it, it's the pounding you can lay on that decided it.
-
I wonder how they up kept wooden ships on high sea service for such a long time.
There's quite a number of sail training ships in the services of various navies around the world that are somewhere between 60 and 110 years old. The German Gorch Fock II - built in 1958, to 1933 plans - is currently being overhauled so she can serve past 2030 - and German cadets instead right now train on her sister Mircea, run by the Romanian Navy and built in 1938.
-
There's quite a number of sail training ships in the services of various navies around the world that are somewhere between 60 and 110 years old. The German Gorch Fock II - built in 1958, to 1933 plans - is currently being overhauled so she can serve past 2030 - and German cadets instead right now train on her sister Mircea, run by the Romanian Navy and built in 1938.
Aren't those Steel hull ships? I was talking about wood hulls, which sometimes had copper bottoms on their keels keep them semi-safe.
Speaking of steel ships, the Japanese cruiser Izumi, whom started off in life as the Esmeralda in Chilean service. She unique noted being the first Protected Cruiser (all steel) of her time.
The picture of her is from 1884 as the Esmeralda.
(http://www.tynebuiltships.co.uk/E-Ships/Esmeralda2-1884.jpg)
When she was first launched, she was sensation among navy circles, since she was also at 18 knots the fastest ship in the world. She was armed with pair of 10 inch guns and half dozen 6 inch guns when she was launched.
She server in Chilean navy for 10 years before being sold off and renamed the Izumi. While in service with Chile, they was used in interesting historical events. She was part of effort try to protect Chile's assets in Panama City and was Occupying the city as part of the effort to prevent the United States from annexation Panama itself in 1885.
She was part of Chiliean Civil War in 1891, where she was part of the Congress's junta's forces. Her most noted actions during the conflict was when she used her guns to bombard President's Loyalist forces into submission in the last battle.
After 10 years of service, Japan purchased the ship from Chile as part of their efforts to replenish their fleet during the First Sino-Japanese War. By the time she had gotten to the Yokosuka Naval District, the war's biggest battles had already accrued.
She re-armed and somewhat downgraded gun-wise to pair of 6 inch guns, and 4.7 guns replacing her original secondary guns in the middecks. However, the Japanese navy added three 356 mm torpedo launchers and then little bit later even large 457mm white head torpedoes on deck.
She didn't get to do alot during the Russo-Japanese War, where she was acting as auxiliary unit during the conflict. She was mainly doing patrols, though she did exchange fire with a Russian cruiser while assigned to IJN's 3rd Fleet. She was sadly decommissioned in 1907 and scrapped in 1912.
Her imperial crest was preserved and is displaced on the memorial battleship Mikasa in Yokosuka.
I actually visited the museum/memorial during my time in Japan. I may have seen it, but don't recall. Sadly my pictures are likely lost. :( :-[
-
Amusingly, the performance of age of sail ships measured by the gun rating system seemingly* parallels Battletech and Mech weights:
60-gun ships/60-ton Mechs - considered the worst of 2 worlds, too slow to fence with frigates and too weak to stand in the line
74-gun ships/75-ton Mechs - the best balance of speed and firepower
80s - again, slower than 74s and weaker than 90s
90s and 100s - the most powerful ships/Mechs of the day, but slow and unwieldy
>100 superheavy - far too heavy to be practical
*but of course in actual fact, the number of guns aboard differed from the official rating, and the build and lines of the ship influenced its sailing qualities, not the number of guns
-
There is a theory that HMS Victory has survived so well because she was first ordered at a time when there was then a relatively long period of peace and so no rush in her construction so the wood was allowed to mature for longer than normal before construction.
I am not sure how much of HMS Victory today is original or whether there is a "ship of Theseus" situation here
-
The Italian beauty the Amerigo Vespucci was built in 1930
(https://i1.wp.com/themilancityjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/image40-800x530.jpg?resize=770%2C530)
-
The new 20,000t LHDs will fit two 76mm and three 25mm btw; Italy uses the 76mm for CIWS with guided DART ammunition.
...
By comparison though the San Giorgios are only frigate-sized at 133m - vs Invincible's 209m overall length.
Ah I forgot the 76mm's use as CIWS. How does it perform compared to other CIWS options?
It was the LPD's Asters and EMPAR that reminded me somewhat of the Invincibles' old Sea Darts.
-
Ah I forgot the 76mm's use as CIWS. How does it perform compared to other CIWS options?
Well, it's proximity-fused 3.5 kg HE warheads fired at 120 rpm and Mach 3.3 with good enough guidance that in testing they instead of knocking down targets with a cloud of fragments they scored direct hits at 5+ km...
It was the LPD's Asters and EMPAR that reminded me somewhat of the Invincibles' old Sea Darts.
The use of EMPAR is also somewhat unusual in that that's not in the standard Enhanced San Giusto package and in that it was already removed from Leonardo's portfolio years before the Algerian LPD - perhaps they still had a set sitting around that they wanted to get rid off. EMPAR has since about 2009 been replaced by Kronos Naval, a solid-state derivative (which the Algerian ship doesn't use - they've only sold it to Italy, the UAE and Peru). Technology-wise EMPAR is almost as old as the Invincibles ;)
Italy sticks Sylver A50 VLS on everything that isn't meant for only patrol.
-
One of the but probably not the most, there was dozens of 100 - 104 gun ships around at the time in French, Spanish and Engliish. The Santassima Trinidad was a unique 4 decker of 130 guns but she was reportedly a nightmare to manouvre and handled poorly, so the extra deck wasn't really worth it and its why the Spanish or no one else copied or repeated her. But Victory was certinally one of the most powerful ships of her day, and at Trafalgar she was an old lady too, at 46 years of age she wasn't the most modern three decker the RN had. But as the design had changed little she was perfectly fine in the line of Battle.
Of course, when the rating system first started, first rates only had about 60 guns...it wasn't until the late 1600's/early 1700's or so that the British started ranking first rates as those ships with 100+ guns...they were also extremely expensive to build and operate, so they were kept in ordinary (basically reserve) for much of their lives, and only commissioned when war was on, and usually served as flagships for admirals...
As to what first rates (of the 100+ gun type, and concentrating on ones that were solely wind-powered) existed, let's see...
At the Battle of Aboukir Bay, the French had L'Orient, an 120 gun warship (what the British would term a first-rate) which was destroyed by an explosion of its ammunition bay during the battle...L'Orient was a part of the Ocean-class, which consisted of 16 ships of approximately 5100 tons displacement with approximately 118 guns, constructed between 1788 and 1854...a few more were planned, but cancelled...Prior to the Ocean-class, the French built the 110 gun Bretagne, and after the Ocean-class came the 110-114 gun Commerce de Paris-class (2 ships built, 7 more cancelled) followed by the 120 gun Valmy followed by the 130 gun, partially steam-powered Bretagne (different from the one mentioned above)...
At Trafalgar, the Spanish had the afore-mentioned Santisima Trinidad, which started as a 112 gun three-decker, but was eventually rebuilt to a 140 gun four-decker...but they also had the 100 gun Rayo (which started life as a 80 gun warship, and was captured by the British after Trafalgar when she was trying to recapture ships the British had taken during that confrontation), and the 112 gun Santa Ana, (lead ship of her class of 8 ships which included the final Spanish 100+ gun warship at Trafalgar-->) and the Principe de Asturias...
Not sure if the Spanish ever built more than these for first rates...
The USA had the 136 gun USS Pennsylvania, authorized in 1816, launched in 1837, sailed from Delaware Bay to Norfolk Navy Yard on her only cruise (partially manned and gunned), where she became a receiving ship and was burned in 1861 to prevent her from falling into the hands of the Confederates (notably, the USS Merrimack was also in the same yard and burned at the same time, but was raised and rebuilt into the CSS Virginia, the first of the Confederate ironclads which would later confront the first US ironclad, the USS Monitor at the Battle of Hampton Roads)...she was the largest wind-powered warship built for the US Navy, and never apparently fired her guns in anger...
The British built several 100+ gun first rates (but never many at the same time...it was noted that only five had been completed and could be readied for action in 1794), but were also planning to build a 170 gun four-decker named the HMS Duke of Kent (never constructed of course)...other first rates include, of course, the 104 gun HMS Victory, but also the other British first rates at the Battle of Trafalgar, the 100 gun HMS Royal Sovereign and HMS Britannia (which was later renamed several times)...then there was the HMS Royal George, which at the time of the launching of this 100 gun first rate in 1756, was considered to be the most powerful warship in the world...there was also the HMS St. Lawrence, an 112 gun first rate noted to be the only such ship to be built and operate solely on fresh water (the ship served on Lake Ontario during the War of 1812)...then there was the 9 ship Caledonia-class of 120 gun first rates, which would all (excepting HMS Caledonia herself) be converted to steam powered screw battleships...and the 110 gun HMS Queen, which has the distinction of being the last fully wind powered sailing warship (or at least first rate) to be completed for the Royal Navy...all subsequent ships would have some form of steam propulsion in addition to sails, and she would herself be converted to this, as well as cut down from a three decker to a two decker with only 86 guns...
It looks like the Royal Navy had a few classes of 120 gun first rates in addition to what I mentioned above...don't know much about those though...
Ruger
-
The main fighting strength of the navies of the time though was the 74 gun type ships, they were the most common and most workman like of the ships of the line. As you said, the 100 gunners were usually kept in Ordinary between wars and I think the British only ever sent 100 gunners across the Atlantic once and that was during the build up to the Battle of Trafalgar. The 74's were used in many roles and were pretty darn numerous.
-
The main fighting strength of the navies of the time though was the 74 gun type ships, they were the most common and most workman like of the ships of the line. As you said, the 100 gunners were usually kept in Ordinary between wars and I think the British only ever sent 100 gunners across the Atlantic once and that was during the build up to the Battle of Trafalgar. The 74's were used in many roles and were pretty darn numerous.
This is a rather nice listing over about 200 years or so that points this out rather well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_line_of_the_Royal_Navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_line_of_the_Royal_Navy)
Ruger
-
Ah I forgot the 76mm's use as CIWS. How does it perform compared to other CIWS options?
It was the LPD's Asters and EMPAR that reminded me somewhat of the Invincibles' old Sea Darts.
Depending on how good your fire control is i think.
A shipmate of mine while serving told me that his Belknap-Class Guided Missile Cruiser had target drone missile was launched from the ship's Mk10 twin rail launchers in the front. His ship was in the Philippines, needed target practice shooting down missiles. They fire the drone and found that it was encircling too close to the ship and it was going to hit. The CIWS (sea wiz) was down for some reason, so the ship used it's Mk42 5-inch/54 Calibur gun and shot down the drone before it impacted with the ship.
I only had what he told me vs reading about it in a report or something. So would take this tail with a grain of salt, but i do believe him.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/DN-SC-84-00626_USS_Belknap_CG-26_19810101.jpg/1280px-DN-SC-84-00626_USS_Belknap_CG-26_19810101.jpg)
-
Fitzgerald was loaded on a heavy lift ship yesterday to be carried back to the U.S.
http://gcaptain.com/damaged-uss-fitzgerald-loaded-japan/ (http://gcaptain.com/damaged-uss-fitzgerald-loaded-japan/)
-
Well the 5-inch on US ships is a good weapon system and it can be used as an AA weapon, proximity fuses, highly accurate radar and a good ROF, against a slow moving drone that would be more than enough.
-
Downunder, we have announced that the Lurssen has been successful in the tender for the Project SEA 1180 (Offshore Patrol Vessel).
(http://www.luerssen-defence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/n_Slider2_opv_80.jpg)
But to keep things interesting, Defence has decided that Lurssen has to team up with Austal for the local build (during the tendering they were already teamed with ASC and CivMec for the local build). So the first two OPV will be built by ASC (based in Adelaide), then the following 10 will be built by Austal and CivMech (both based in Perth).
-
HMS Diamond suffered an engineering casualty and aborted her Gulf deployment.
Earlier this year she took a brief spell as NATO flagship from HMS Duncan, leading NATO Standing Maritime Group 2 in the Med, handover below at Montenegro.
With Dauntless and Defender in the shop for refit, Daring just come off deployment, Dragon returned from training with QE2 and Duncan also taking a break before going back to the Med, that means all six Type 45s are at home rather than out on taskings. Not exactly a good way for the Royal Navy to see out 2017.
(http://navaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/hms-diamond-gets-underway-from-montenegro-as-snmg2-flagship-1024x630.jpg)
This is a rather nice listing over about 200 years or so that points this out rather well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_line_of_the_Royal_Navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_line_of_the_Royal_Navy)
Was looking at that list recently myself trying to work out the Royal Navy fleet circa Trafalgar ;D
Well, it's proximity-fused 3.5 kg HE warheads fired at 120 rpm and Mach 3.3 with good enough guidance that in testing they instead of knocking down targets with a cloud of fragments they scored direct hits at 5+ km...
Hmm... compared to say RAM? (Of course a 76mm is cheaper and more versatile. Just trying to get a feel for its PD capabilities.)
-
Downunder, we have announced that the Lurssen has been successful in the tender for the Project SEA 1180 (Offshore Patrol Vessel).
(http://www.luerssen-defence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/n_Slider2_opv_80.jpg)
But to keep things interesting, Defence has decided that Lurssen has to team up with Austal for the local build (during the tendering they were already teamed with ASC and CivMec for the local build). So the first two OPV will be built by ASC (based in Adelaide), then the following 10 will be built by Austal and CivMech (both based in Perth).
Requiring a team up with a local industry allows for two very important things, employment in the home country, and complete production license. Of the two, the second is the most important. The number of times plants have gone out of business or retooled with platforms having 10+ years of service life remaining is ridiculous. If you buy from another nation you need to either build in country or ensure that the selling nation has a large number of those vessels at sea.
When I look at those Lurrsens though, I just thing chubby...
-
I just find it funny that in our usual way of making things more complicated that they need to be, instead of letting Lurssen proceed with their bid partnership with ASC/CivMec we had to insist that they also partner with Austal (who were partnered with Fassmer during the bidding process).
Austal is also an aluminium hull specialist and this will only be the second steel hull they will have built (after the Pacific Patrol Boats that they are still designing), so TPTB cannot even claim it is because they have expertise in delivering these hulls.
I also wonder why they have gone with the Lurssen design which has a flight deck but no hangar. I believe both the Fassmer and the Damen designs included a hangar.
-
I just find it funny that in our usual way of making things more complicated that they need to be, instead of letting Lurssen proceed with their bid partnership with ASC/CivMec we had to insist that they also partner with Austal (who were partnered with Fassmer during the bidding process).
Austal is also an aluminium hull specialist and this will only be the second steel hull they will have built (after the Pacific Patrol Boats that they are still designing), so TPTB cannot even claim it is because they have expertise in delivering these hulls.
I also wonder why they have gone with the Lurssen design which has a flight deck but no hangar. I believe both the Fassmer and the Damen designs included a hangar.
Those questions all have answers that would break the forum rules :-)
Suffice to say, money is king in these endeavors, trumping all else.
There is a theory that HMS Victory has survived so well because she was first ordered at a time when there was then a relatively long period of peace and so no rush in her construction so the wood was allowed to mature for longer than normal before construction.
I am not sure how much of HMS Victory today is original or whether there is a "ship of Theseus" situation here
Sail age vessels have several unfair advantages in terms of longevity.
Wood is far more buoyant than steel.
Choose the right wood, and treat it properly, and it will never rot.
Wooden ships are immune to rust, the primary killer of steel ships.
Due to their slower speeds and lighter weight, wooden ships don't tend to cop the pounding steel ships do, unless they end up in a big storm which they are capable of sheltering from in harbours.
Shallower draufts tend to reduce groundings.
And now for the real reason:
These ships are obsolete and thus an item of curiosity. As a result they are babied, while they may be sailed a couple of times a year, they are always being maintained in tip top condition without the kind of abuse modern warships are put through. Treat any of those sail aged vessels like we treat a modern warship, with budget cuts, deferred maintenance and supply shortages and you will see them falling apart much sooner.
Provide any ship with the resources to repair themselves and they will be run indefinitely, the issue is keeping modern warships up to date, with combat effective systems. Steel is much more commercially viable than wood, thus they tend to be sold off for scrap on decommissioning, without regard for the feelings of the men and women that loved and hated them.
Steel ships can last for incredibly long periods, even with limited maintenance, there are pre-WWII steel ships still running around up top, used as coastal luggers and barges. You don't hear about them because they reduced to a pointless existence. In some ways I prefer the sleek graceful ladies to go out with a bang, at least that has some dignity.
-
Those questions all have answers that would break the forum rules :-)
Its ok, they were more rhetorical questions that I already know the answer to anyway :'(
-
Well the 5-inch on US ships is a good weapon system and it can be used as an AA weapon, proximity fuses, highly accurate radar and a good ROF, against a slow moving drone that would be more than enough.
I was under an impression it was FAST drone but i may be totally mistaken. I wasn't there for it. The USS Salem's crew who conducted tours in Quincy, MA had told me they were told to keep thiungs hush hush that their 8 inch Guns used her were able to shoot Jets of the times down. Thus i would think it possible if the FC was still ready and in place it could pull it off.
The French's 100mm cannons can shoot down missiles as well, using special ammunition.
La Fayette class Frigates classically have it on it' stealthy hull, as one most standing out features! I actually like variant of the class Singapore employs, the Formidable-class frigates. Formidable Class doesn't have the 100mm, but has a 76mm in it's place. It's pretty nicely fitted out as weapons and sensors go. I certain love their Navy's naming practices! Classical ship names!
The pictured ship is the RSS Steadfast.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Singapore_Navy_guided-missile_frigate_RSS_Steadfast.jpg)
-
It's pretty nicely fitted out as weapons and sensors go. I certain love their Navy's naming practices!
I don't. It was a silly idea to have Victory class missile boats all named V-names and then have the Formidables named Formidable, Intrepid, Steadfast, Tenacious, Stalwart and Supreme (ugh!!) - these being not so much classic ship names as desirable core values of the armed forces ::)
That being said they are indeed the most capable ships in the region, updated periodically with Israeli ECM devices, and the open bay in the middle of the ship can embark containerised mission equipment, RHIBs, or up to 24 (!) Harpoon SSMs.
(https://s7.postimg.org/kctztwrt7/19_May_2013_NOH_028a.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.org/r3ah3cmor/fa4_P6_MH.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.org/41tvxl7ln/LYE_1741.jpg)
They are now building the Independence class littoral mission vessels patrol boats, highly automated with a single watch of only 8, total crew 23, and sadly conforming to the Formidable naming system... but not before Mindef thought it would be a good idea to pull a McBoatyface and soliciting naming ideas from Facebook!
RSS Sweetheart, RSS TUVWXYZ, RSS E (say it as 1 word, and recall a certain British Army forum) and RSS CPF (think USS 401k) and RSS Hulk were amongst those rejected... as well as other Rule 4 names...
(http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/27may16_news4.jpg)
-
The French's 100mm cannons can shoot down missiles as well, using special ammunition.
Germany used to employ those French 100mm half a century ago for optimizing throw-weight in ship-to-shore and ship-to-ship bombardment.
Type 101 destroyer:
(https://abload.de/img/z101boqtg.png)
Initial outfit was four 100mm for shore bombardment, four twin 40mm for AA plus two quad 375mm Bofors ASW mortars for ASW. Yes, no missiles, despite them coming into service in the mid-60s. Type 101A upgrade in the 70s replaced one of the 100mm turrets by two twin Exocet launchers.
Original planning in the mid-60s also had them supporting amphibious landings with naval gunfire, hence the optimization focus. This role was later eliminated when plans to procure LSDs for the German Navy were cancelled in the late 60s. A Type 101 could lay down 3.24 tons per minute on a beach - an outfit with four US 5"/38 turrets would only have been able to lay down 2.2 tons per minute out to virtually the same range, while weighing 40% more.
By the late 80s a Type 101B upgrade for these destroyers was planned but never realized. Type 101B would have added two RAM launchers and lost another 100mm, while gaining either an ASROC launcher or additional Exocets.
I also wonder why they have gone with the Lurssen design which has a flight deck but no hangar.
The Lürssen OPV80 has a crew of 40, the Damen OPV2400 a crew of 60, the Fassmer OPV80 a crew of 80. That's the easy answer.
For the harder answer, the Lürssen design includes some features that are interesting for detached patrol with possible upscale, such as an integrated RAS station and a stern ramp. On downsides, the Fassmer design - at least in the versions sold so far - has... let's call them USN standard crew accomodations which the other two... well, don't; the Fassmer design overall is more built as a small blue-water escort to military standards, even if a bit basic for that. And the downside of Damen OPVs - in general - is their quirky non-separation of bridge and CIC, whereas the Lürssen design not only comes with a proper separate operations room but also a proper, scalable combat management system (Terma C-Flex OPV).
-
Just came across this and found it astounding. CL-96 USS Reno following a torpedo hit from a Japanese submarine, Nov. 1944
-
I don't. It was a silly idea to have Victory class missile boats all named V-names and then have the Formidables named Formidable, Intrepid, Steadfast, Tenacious, Stalwart and Supreme (ugh!!) - these being not so much classic ship names as desirable core values of the armed forces ::)
That being said they are indeed the most capable ships in the region, updated periodically with Israeli ECM devices, and the open bay in the middle of the ship can embark containerised mission equipment, RHIBs, or up to 24 (!) Harpoon SSMs.
*snip*
They are now building the Independence class littoral mission vessels patrol boats, highly automated with a single watch of only 8, total crew 23, and sadly conforming to the Formidable naming system... but not before Mindef thought it would be a good idea to pull a McBoatyface and soliciting naming ideas from Facebook!
RSS Sweetheart, RSS TUVWXYZ, RSS E (say it as 1 word, and recall a certain British Army forum) and RSS CPF (think USS 401k) and RSS Hulk were amongst those rejected... as well as other Rule 4 names...
The Republic of Singapore is another RN trained navy which is known for their technical prowess and operational secrecy. They are great to work with if you can break down the communication barrier, and know exactly how to use the comparatively limited gear they have. As for their naming conventions, that's the RN training coming out in them, the RN prefers thematic naming conventions such as common first letter or subject, where as the USN uses a bizarre mishmash of battles, cities, people and presidents. The fact that the RAN now sort of follows the USN method really doesn't alleviate my bafflement.
I do wonder when the world will realise that having more input is not necessarily a good thing? To be honest it was the height of stupidity to throw naming voting competitions out there where any idiot can suggest a name and others will vote for it because it's funny.
-
What's wrong with funny names? Maybe not for warships and other military vessels, but I don't see anything wrong with civilian vessels that might brighten up a harbor crew's day a bit when it pulls in.
You should always be careful not to have too much dignity in your life. That path leads to things like powdered wigs.
-
What's wrong with funny names? Maybe not for warships and other military vessels, but I don't see anything wrong with civilian vessels that might brighten up a harbor crew's day a bit when it pulls in.
You should always be careful not to have too much dignity in your life. That path leads to things like powdered wigs.
I can't remember where I saw it, but there was a fiction story that had an ammunition carrying transport ship named the 'S.S. Guy Fawkes'. Always got a laugh out of that one.
-
Ammo replenishment ships that are named for volcanoes always worry me... :)
-
The USS Fitzgerald got her hull penetrated again. The cradle of the heavy life ship punched a hole in her causing her to be returned to Japan for additional patch up repairs. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/27/politics/uss-fitzgerald-damaged-japan/index.html)
(http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/171128074744-fitzgerald-transport-exlarge-169.jpg)
-
The USS Fitzgerald got her hull penetrated again. The cradle of the heavy life ship punched a hole in her causing her to be returned to Japan for additional patch up repairs. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/27/politics/uss-fitzgerald-damaged-japan/index.html)
(http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/171128074744-fitzgerald-transport-exlarge-169.jpg)
She be a cursed ship now. Best to strip her down for part and strike her from the registry.
-
Yeah, ships that end up getting dinged up outside combat never end up having decent careers.
(https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h68000/h68352.jpg)
-
"You break it, you bought it."
-
I can't remember where I saw it, but there was a fiction story that had an ammunition carrying transport ship named the 'S.S. Guy Fawkes'. Always got a laugh out of that one.
I read a short story once where the king lets his young daughter name the newest BC (to get her to shut up). I never got to run "HMS Fluffy Kitten" myself, unfortunately... :(
-
Yeah, ships that end up getting dinged up outside combat never end up having decent careers.
(https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h68000/h68352.jpg)
Ouch. I saw the dameg in Indiana but this is horrible.
-
Ammo replenishment ships that are named for volcanoes always worry me... :)
All hail the USS Mount St Helens!
-
I know we've mentioned her before in these threads, but I'll still put the link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vesuvius_(1888) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vesuvius_(1888))
-
Ammo replenishment ships that are named for volcanoes always worry me... :)
some of the volcanoes are named for RN bomb vessels while others are the other way around - when not used for blowing stuff up they had nice reinforced hulls for arctic exploration. HMS Terror and Erebus spring to mind.
As for their naming conventions, that's the RN training coming out in them, the RN prefers thematic naming conventions such as common first letter or subject, where as the USN uses a bizarre mishmash of battles, cities, people and presidents. The fact that the RAN now sort of follows the USN method really doesn't alleviate my bafflement.
There are conventions in the USN and RN (and RN influenced navies such as RAN and Singapore Navy) but the RN tends away from full names like the Howard T Blowhard and so would call such a ship either the Blowhard or after the noble title awarded to Blowhard for victories in the dim and distant past like Lord Wafflecone and so might be part of a class of ships named for various Lords or types of "hero" like generals, admirals or Royal mistresses.
There is also a concern about taking thematic naming conventions too far in case you run out of names - what would the USN do if they got given 51 SSBNs or if you run out of "I" names like Invincible and end up with HMS Incorrigible or HMS Improbable.
-
You give the USN 51 boomers, I'm pretty sure they're gonna name #51 after you. :)
...or they'll find a way to name a state after you, which neatly solves the Navy's problem. :)
-
Given how some navies larger ships are shrinking, thematic naming would still work. I rather have the US carriers named thematically. I think it's more appealing.
-
You give the USN 51 boomers, I'm pretty sure they're gonna name #51 after you. :)
...or they'll find a way to name a state after you, which neatly solves the Navy's problem. :)
USS Monkey World?
Given how some navies larger ships are shrinking, thematic naming would still work. I rather have the US carriers named thematically. I think it's more appealing.
If the USN stopped naming carriers for Presidents, after having a new Enterprise, what would you go with? An E theme? Excellent? Excelsior? There might be enough states after the SSBNs/SSGNs to give some to carriers. Or maybe go for major flying wildlife - Hawk, Eagle, Condor?
-
Well, if you included insects, there might be an uptick in recruitment from folks wanting to serve on another USS Wasp or USS Hornet. :)
-
inspiration for names?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect-class_gunboat
-
inspiration for names?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect-class_gunboat
I'd hate to be one of the poor souls serving aboard a ship called the Cockchafer in these internet meme infested times. The juvenile snickering would be endless.
-
What's wrong with funny names? Maybe not for warships and other military vessels, but I don't see anything wrong with civilian vessels that might brighten up a harbor crew's day a bit when it pulls in.
You should always be careful not to have too much dignity in your life. That path leads to things like powdered wigs.
Funny? Nothing. Silly? Plenty, for an official vessel anyway. An official vessel is an emissary of state, not a toy.
Considering I see nothing wrong with the Titan Uranus (A real vessel, not kidding!) I'd get a giggle out of a few in jokes, but letting every idiot with internet access suggest or vote for names for warships makes most of them just plain silly, Boaty McBoatface being the prime example. While you are correct that you shouldn't have too much dignity, you also don't want to publicly let go of your dignity, especially not as a nation state.
-
You give the USN 51 boomers, I'm pretty sure they're gonna name #51 after you. :)
...or they'll find a way to name a state after you, which neatly solves the Navy's problem. :)
The Navy doesn't have a problem going outside of the class naming pattern. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Henry_M._Jackson_(SSBN-730)
-
The Navy doesn't have a problem going outside of the class naming pattern. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Henry_M._Jackson_(SSBN-730)
They are going to have to do something different this time. The Virginia SSN's are predominately named after states.
-
In this era, i think of the Attack Submarines are more the Battleships or cruisers of this time.
-
They are going to have to do something different this time. The Virginia SSN's are predominately named after states.
as are the Los Angeles Class. to quote Admiral Rickover, when asked why he dropped the animal naming scheme: "Fish don't vote!"
personally i rather prefer the sea creature based names, and love to use the lists of subs from WW2 when looking for names for fiictional spaceships and stuff.
-
as are the Los Angeles Class. to quote Admiral Rickover, when asked why he dropped the animal naming scheme: "Fish don't vote!"
personally i rather prefer the sea creature based names, and love to use the lists of subs from WW2 when looking for names for fiictional spaceships and stuff.
I thought the Ohio's were named after states and the Los Angeles were named after cities?
Naming conventions are a touchy thing, difficult to pin down because what someone thinks is great is something their replacement thinks is stupid. I prefer basic conventions which lead to little controversy, such as values, ideals, geographical features etc. If you start naming them after people, that causes issues with single issue zealots popping up everywhere.
-
Jackson wasn't the only senator to have a ship named after him. See the USS JOHN C. STENNIS...
-
as are the Los Angeles Class. to quote Admiral Rickover, when asked why he dropped the animal naming scheme: "Fish don't vote!"
personally i rather prefer the sea creature based names, and love to use the lists of subs from WW2 when looking for names for fiictional spaceships and stuff.
Los Angeles class were mostly cities, Ohio's were named after states.
-
Los Angeles class were mostly cities, Ohio's were named after states.
States for SSBNs works well, they are the most terrifying vessels a navy possesses so probably take the role of battleships. The RN's SSBNs also get historic battleship names.
Cities for SSNs works well as that follows patterns of such names for cruisers in the USN and again, that is not an unreasonable way to think of their role.
as are the Los Angeles Class. to quote Admiral Rickover, when asked why he dropped the animal naming scheme: "Fish don't vote!"
personally i rather prefer the sea creature based names, and love to use the lists of subs from WW2 when looking for names for fiictional spaceships and stuff.
There are some sea creatures that are suitably aggressive sounding to make for a satisfying attack submarine but too many feel a bit vague - Seawolf is cool but Blowfish or Seaslug might not help to inspire morale and would risk making for bad letters home if anything goes awry
Funny? Nothing. Silly? Plenty, for an official vessel anyway. An official vessel is an emissary of state, not a toy.
Considering I see nothing wrong with the Titan Uranus (A real vessel, not kidding!) I'd get a giggle out of a few in jokes, but letting every idiot with internet access suggest or vote for names for warships makes most of them just plain silly, Boaty McBoatface being the prime example. While you are correct that you shouldn't have too much dignity, you also don't want to publicly let go of your dignity, especially not as a nation state.
I'd say the same for names of Operations or missions as military vessels or vehicles - because these represent lives being put at stake for "noble" reasons, I would not want my [loved one] to be sent off on OPERATION FLUFFY BUNNY in the HMS Belgian Waffle
-
Or USS Tuna. Or USS Salmon. Or USSs Cod, Tunny, Turbot, etc.
I think the RN does it best. States, counties, mythical figures, impressive natural phenomena and adjectives; then resurrect the names with great history and careers. Makes for good esprit d corps. Generally avoids political issues if elected heads of states are used.
Notably, IJN names sound good when translated to English too.
-
Seems like as good of a time to post a photo of USS Cochino to reinforce the sometimes-awkward names given to American subs.
(http://sflma.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/USS-Cochino.jpg)
-
Or USS Tuna. Or USS Salmon. Or USSs Cod, Tunny, Turbot, etc.
I think the RN does it best. States, counties, mythical figures, impressive natural phenomena and adjectives; then resurrect the names with great history and careers. Makes for good esprit d corps. Generally avoids political issues if elected heads of states are used.
Notably, IJN names sound good when translated to English too.
The USS Cod is in fantastic shape up in Cleveland.
-
In what is truly a holiday miracle, my parents recently not only acknowledged the existence of my hobbies, my mother liked the paper Age of Sail ships enough that she wants one for her shelf. Needless to say, figuring out a Christmas present this year should be a no-brainer. 8)
The question is, which ship? She's French/Belgian so choosing the ship's nationality is similarly easy, but...that's still a lot of ships to choose from. She may not know much of anything regarding naval history, but I'd much rather pick something notable. I've got the files needed to make 36- or 74-gun ships, but I've been meaning to get more anyway, so hardly need much arguing to choose something of a different rate.
So to sum up: I need to choose *one* French or Belgian warship from the entire Age of Sail, to make a model as a gift. Any suggestions?
-
In what is truly a holiday miracle, my parents recently not only acknowledged the existence of my hobbies, my mother liked the paper Age of Sail ships enough that she wants one for her shelf. Needless to say, figuring out a Christmas present this year should be a no-brainer. 8)
The question is, which ship? She's French/Belgian so choosing the ship's nationality is similarly easy, but...that's still a lot of ships to choose from. She may not know much of anything regarding naval history, but I'd much rather pick something notable. I've got the files needed to make 36- or 74-gun ships, but I've been meaning to get more anyway, so hardly need much arguing to choose something of a different rate.
So to sum up: I need to choose *one* French or Belgian warship from the entire Age of Sail, to make a model as a gift. Any suggestions?
The Acheron from Master & Commander?
Fictional so less harm or politics
-
How about Hermione?
-
Can you find a ship that served in the French, Belgian (or Dutch?) as well as the British navy? :)
-
Belgium doesn't pre-date Napoleon :D and its navy, such as it was, barely pre-dated the age of sail.
Sad to say the Age of Sail French Navy comes off the worse from both a military and historical perspective. As a point of interest though the Temeraire-class of 74s are the most numerous class of battleships built in history and served well in both British and French fleets, so that would be my choice - Temeraire, lead ship of the class, will serve as representative. The class was considered by the RN to be the ship-of-the-line par excellence and much imitated thereafter. As far as talking pieces go is that not sufficient?
-
For the Belgian Navy you have a grand total of four "real" ships to choose from: the brigantines Congres and Les Quatre Journees, the schooner Louise Marie and the brig Duc de Brabant, originally commissioned as Prince Royal. While carrying these different designations all four were two-master brigs. The brigantines were 8-gun mixed-battery ships of only 25m length, the somewhat enlarged Louise Marie a 10-gun ship of 27m length.
Beyond that there were also either four or five gunboats that the French had captured from the Dutch in 1833 and handed over to the Belgians. These single-mast ships should have been standardized to 4-gun vessels, but apparently occasionally carried different artillery outfits.
Duc de Brabant - built to a then-40-year-old French design in 1843-1845 - was somewhat larger at 32m and 16 guns and the largest ship of the Belgian Navy. Her design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abeille-class_brig) was a rebuild of a larger class from Napoleon's Navy of which the French were getting rid of the last units around the same time; at least one ship of that class also served in the British Royal Navy back then after being captured, so there you have your triple-navy ship. :P
Offhand, Louise Marie was the only of the four who became somewhat notable by actually seeing a battle - if you can call it that. She joined up with French corvettes La Recherche and La Prudente along with two requisitioned re-armed civilian vessels in firing on the town of Boke and British "traders" there in the Rio Nunez Incident in 1849. By francophone propaganda of course only firing back after "encountering enduring intense fire from light artillery" from which the 500 or so sailors suffered five casualties.
(https://abload.de/img/nuneze8qh3.png)
Louise Marie to the right.
-
How about Hermione?
This is one of my front runners, as well as Ville de Paris. She's been living among Americans and the accompanying stupid cracks about French military prowess for forty years, I'm sure she'd appreciate a model of one of the vessels without whom the US might not exist in the same form.
Gonna have to see if he makes any files suitable for Louise-Marie, especially since I just finished painting up the modern vessel of that name. :)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/7a/8e/cd/7a8ecde5112ce98068d72994eea31c02--ship-paintings-napoleonic-wars.jpg)
One of these two? Vengeur du Peuple and Achille find HMS Brunswick between the two of them (just before Brunswick fouled herself on the former's rigging with her anchors)
-
Interestingly enough, I've already finished a mini of Vengeur, under her pre-revolutionary name Marseillois. :)
-
This is one of my front runners, as well as Ville de Paris.
The Ville de Paris was the one I believe I would have suggested for a larger vessel...
Ruger
-
Sorry to bother you ,Weirdo. Your picture name says Replica of the HMS Victory. Is that a real replica? i wasn't able to find a ship like that.
-
Yup. A 1/4 scale replica built to settle an argument between two officers regarding Victory's seaworthiness. The model proved the class to handle quite nicely, and after that proved to be a huge success in nautical parades.
-
That' neat. I was trying find out about, but i couldn't much about her.
In mean while, the fleet get bit more cheerful from here.
HMS Lancaater's main gun looks more like Dalek in this view though!
(http://www.seabreezes.co.im/images/content/features/201412/HMSLancasterChristmas.jpg)
I like the lights on the USS Crommelin...
(https://ibdesignsusa.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/j-christmaslightsusscrommelin.jpg)
-
Nice job for the British!
-
I like the lights on the USS Crommelin...
(https://ibdesignsusa.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/j-christmaslightsusscrommelin.jpg)
As a Navy Brat, I always liked seeing the ships having the Christmas lights on in port. It was a way to see them all.
-
I have a vague memory of seeing a bunch of Navy vessels in Annapolis in Christmas lights, but I am baffled as to when it could've been. I'll ask my mother.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/51a7a61fb65eb23cce811cbaaff52247/tumblr_p0e98cQW1Y1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The Italian Battleship Scilia during a visit to Toulon.
-
That's a battleship? Where's the armament?
-
That's a battleship? Where's the armament?
Well she's an Ironclad, the main guns 4 x 13.5 inch rifles, are mounted in pairs atop those big white areas forward and aft of the superstructure. These ships when introduced had all round firing, a bloody useful feature at the time. Other navies guns tended to be fixed loading, meaning they tended to have to swing back to point ahead/astern and elevate to load. All round loading meant they could be reloaded at any angle. And there's a load of secondaries along her flank.
-
That's a battleship? Where's the armament?
pre-dreadnought
Well she's an Ironclad, the main guns 4 x 13.5 inch rifles, are mounted in pairs atop those big white areas forward and aft of the superstructure. These ships when introduced had all round firing, a bloody useful feature at the time. Other navies guns tended to be fixed loading, meaning they tended to have to swing back to point ahead/astern and elevate to load. All round loading meant they could be reloaded at any angle. And there's a load of secondaries along her flank.
They wanted a small number of big guns then an array of smaller calibre weapons
This is why Dreadnought was so revolutionary - she could bring to bear double the fire power at a far greater speed
-
True, and the 4 x big gun, x number of smaller weapons was the standard for many years.
-
I repeat myself, but ...
Prior to the late 1890s, there was no such thing as "fire control". Naval combat would have taken place at almost Napoleonic ranges - one to three thousand yards. Big guns hit hard, if they hit, and took long times to reload. Smaller guns did less damage, but could fire more shots in the same time, and at least hit something. So prudent naval architects used the layer-cake approach - a few big guns, some medium guns, and lots of smaller guns.
The evolution of naval fire control is itself a fascinating area. The Japanese were using the layer cake paradigm at Tsushima, but noticed that only the big gun hits did any real damage. Other thinkers were already moving in this direction. Fisher threw more money at the problem, and got there first into the water.
-
Oh aye, I know :) With a ROF of a round per 1 - 2 minutes for a 12-inch gun, one could argue that the 6-inch guns of pre-dreadnoughs were the main weapon. As you said the ranges were barely above Napoleonic, with the RN practicing at ranges of 4000 yards in the late 1800s. The French practiced out to 7000 yards which was considered astronomical.
Thanks to Fisher's drive the RN started adopting the systems pioneered by Captain Percy Scott and this increased range and accuracy and it was Fisher who when looking at the evidence of the Russo-Japanese war saw that gunner range would go up and it made just common sense to have a uniform set of big guns instead of a main, secondary and tertiary mix that was becoming the vogue. He had the RN rush ahead and be the first to get an all big gun ship launched, the US had the first one laid down but thanks to Fisher and a LOT of money, the Dreadnought was the first to be completed.
-
The ability to put more firepower down range makes the weapon more powerful. If a 12 in shot weighs at 850 lbs you would need 8 6 inch shots just to have the equivalent throw weight. I'm sure the 6in fired at a faster rate but not 8 times faster.
-
USS Mississippi BB-23 (Pre-dreadnought) built in 1908, she was one of the ships that partipated with the Great White Fleet cruise around the world.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/MississippiCropped.png)
In the picture, this is her just after she was commissioned, without the cage masts her generation of ships were known to be fitted with in later years. She armed with 12 inch guns in 2 turrets, with 8 inch guns in smaller turrets, while it has 7inch guns in casemates along it's sides. 3inch guns were provided for anti-torpedo defense.
I never heard of the 7 inch guns before, according to the article the Class, the guns were quicker firing than 8 inch guns. They and the 3 inch guns were removed prior to WW1, where the 7s were removed due to sea-keeping issues.
As the Mississippi, she aside from sailing world with the Great White Fleet, she didn't get to participate any actions after being sold to Greece, where she became that Navy's most powerful unit along with her sister ship, USS Idaho.
Renamed the Kilkis, she was used support ally landings during First World War I after the Greece's civil war essentially ended. Prior to WWII the ship fought in the Greco-Turkish War. Unfortunately for Greece, the ships were bombed in 1941 when the Nazi Germany bombed them during their invasion of the country. The Kilkis and her sister ship were raised in 1950s and scrapped.
-
The White Fleet
-
Nothing like saying your a world power with ships are obsolescent because of the HMS Dreadnought
-
Nothing like saying your a world power with ships are obsolescent because of the HMS Dreadnought
To be fair, that problem wasn't unique to the Americans. EVERYONE had the same 'uh oh' problem with the rise of the dreadnoughts- perhaps no one more than the British themselves, who suddenly went from the world's mightiest navy to an advantage of 1-0 over her rivals. And even THAT didn't last long- technically, the Americans laid down the South Carolina BEFORE Dreadnought, just took longer to build her. (In some ways a superior ship, even, though not in enough ways to have a clear advantage).
The White Fleet wasn't so much an announcement of 'look how powerful our ships are!' as 'we are a world-class navy able to send this fleet around the world, same as Britain or France or any of the rest of you'. And in that regard it's hard to view it as anything but a total success. Where the American fleet was seen a decade earlier (accurately) as a pair of coastal-defense fleets with limited ability to transfer ships between the two oceans, the White Fleet and the Spanish-American War showed that they were a match (or at least a rival) for any of the European powers.
-
Agreed. The Great White Fleet was more a demonstration of logistics and power projection than battleship superiority. If the USN had built the best battleships on the planet but lacked the ability to support them across oceans, nobody who mattered at the time would have cared.
-
I'm not saying the Great White Fleet wasn't a bad idea. Navies still go around the world to make port calls. The Dreadnought really changed ship design and made everything even in the UK go down a couple levels.
I like the South Carolina Class because of BB-27 the USS Michigan named for my home state! They did have the same broadside as the Dreadnought ships just a couple knots slower, which is a big deal when you top out a 20.
-
Yeah, to be a much smaller ship and still have the same broadside was seen by the British as being near witchcraft at the time- superfiring turrets were a pretty novel thing at that point. For all the leaps forward Dreadnought made, and as much as she influenced every battleship that came after, there's a lot of the South Carolinas in later ships as well- from every nation's designs. I recall seeing an assessment made by Tirpitz' office that compared them favorably to their own Nassau-class ships, which must have gone over rather poorly with the German navy.
-
I like the South Carolina Class because of BB-27 the USS Michigan named for my home state! They did have the same broadside as the Dreadnought ships just a couple knots slower, which is a big deal when you top out a 20.
I think it's amazing to think that the USS Zumwalt the (14,564 tons) is shy 2,000 lighter than South Caroline (16,000-17,000 tons) Battleships of yesteryear.
I don't think we'll see ships as unique as Zumwalt, given were properly locked in producing DDG-51s until like 2040s.
Note: I nearly typed 3040s...too much Battletech. XD
-
I don't think we'll see ships as unique as Zumwalt, given were properly locked in producing DDG-51s until like 2040s.
Note: I nearly typed 3040s...too much Battletech. XD
Don't laugh, you might be closer than you think.
-
I don't know if the Burkes will be still around in the 3050's but I can say that the B-52 will be.
-
Did someone say B-52?
(http://www.strategic-air-command.com/stories/B-52_USS_Ranger_flyby.jpg)
(No, that is not a doctored image)
-
Did someone say B-52?
(http://www.strategic-air-command.com/stories/B-52_USS_Ranger_flyby.jpg)
(No, that is not a doctored image)
When it is that low, I'm pretty sure it counts as a WiGE!
Makes you wonder...could the new EMALS get one of those bad boys off the deck with enough airspeed to stay dry? I know you couldn't get it below deck or land it, but still...a carrier launched B-52 would be a helluva thing to see.
-
could the new EMALS get one of those bad boys off the deck with enough airspeed to stay dry?
Might be remotely possible if the B-52(H) is nearly dry. At 90,000 kg weight - minimal fuel load - the stall speed of a B-52 is supposedly around 99 knots while EMALS should be able to push it to 100.8 knots based on its supposed stats.
-
How low can it go? 8)
And a shot from the Ranger to the B52 on the other pic
-
Might be remotely possible if the B-52(H) is nearly dry. At 90,000 kg weight - minimal fuel load - the stall speed of a B-52 is supposedly around 99 knots while EMALS should be able to push it to 100.8 knots based on its supposed stats.
Yeah, but the BUFF is no sprinter. Takeoff run for something like that is maybe 7,000 feet; chopping that to 300 feet is going to do very brutal things to the aircraft...I think an experiment with EMALS will result in it pushing a rough accumulation of both front wheel bogies, several frame members, the lower fourth of the cockpit, and the forward bulkhead of the front bomb bay to the 100.8 knots expected speed.
-
The FAA/RAF crew of this Buccaneer wonder if the B-52 crew are having to use oxygen they're so high
-
Love seeing planes flying low. Seeing navy planes fly low over the water, seems like that's how a navy plane should fly. Seeing the B52 fly low just adds to the capability of the plane.
-
Certainly C-130s can, though the pictures below I think was just demonstrative purposes they could do it.
USS Forrestal in October 1963.
(http://www.theaviationzone.com/art-bin/photos/c130_1a.jpg)
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Look-ma-no-hook.jpg)
-
I just came across of this. I guess Navy will not likely get their Rail Guns after all.
A news report i read on Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/comment/railgun-potentially-cancelled-went-wrong-us-superweapon/) reported that costs for development out way the benefits.
However, the ammunition they were developing for the gun can be used in conventional cannons, it looks like the ammunition will be used with them instead. However, its not completely dead but odds aren't good.
-
Certainly C-130s can, though the pictures below I think was just demonstrative purposes they could do it.
USS Forrestal in October 1963.
(http://www.theaviationzone.com/art-bin/photos/c130_1a.jpg)
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Look-ma-no-hook.jpg)
Yep. They did a total of 21 tests, gave the pilot a Distinguished Flying Cross, and never tried it again.
-
Yep. They did a total of 21 tests, gave the pilot a Distinguished Flying Cross, new underpants and never tried it again.
Fixed for you O0
-
If we are going to talk big aircraft near/on aircraft carriers then:
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/32/c0/cd/32c0cd4069e130f35007a9334d1de8e2--aircraft-carrier-arrow.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/F-111B_CVA-43_launch_July1968.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wI-DdPSXymk/TUITLexZ8LI/AAAAAAAABBE/omA3eblkPWc/s1600/F-111BTouchdownCoralSea+Cleaned+web.jpg)
-
F-111? Nice...
Looks like USS Zumwalt's sister ship is undergoing trials now, USS Michael Monsoor DDG 1001.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ig69rcH.jpg)
-
F-111? Nice...
Sea Trials of the prototype F-111B trials aboard USS Coral Sea.
Would you like to know more? https://youtu.be/UxDV9y5Is64 (https://youtu.be/UxDV9y5Is64)
-
Fixed for you O0
From what I've read, the pilot was cool as a cucumber. It was everyone else that wore brown trousers for the duration of the tests.
Man, I love the Herky Bird. But that's a topic for another thread. :D
-
if my research was right, the C-130 tests actually proved fairly viable, in terms of takeoffs and landings. the reason it was never picked up was that the sheer size of the plane and the deck area that would have to be cleared to let it land and take off was just so large that it was a major disruption to operations, and would limit the number of planes that could be carried in the air wing (since they wouldn't be able to park as many on deck, in order to be able to clear them out of the way.)
so instead they developed a smaller Carrier delivery craft, the C-1 Trader, that could operate off carriers using the same catapult and arrester wire set ups as the fighters, and which would be more easily slotted into normal deck operations.
-
I recall reading that at one point, just to see if it would work, the pilot threw the plane into full reverse on the props while he was still about 10 feet above the deck. The total landing run from wheels-down to stop at that point was something idiotic like 30 feet, without a tailhook.
If we are going to talk big aircraft near/on aircraft carriers then:
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/32/c0/cd/32c0cd4069e130f35007a9334d1de8e2--aircraft-carrier-arrow.jpg)
I always dug that short Vought nose on the early -111, before it got the extension. It seriously gives the cockpit a look like the F-8.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/F-111B_CVA-43_launch_July1968.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wI-DdPSXymk/TUITLexZ8LI/AAAAAAAABBE/omA3eblkPWc/s1600/F-111BTouchdownCoralSea+Cleaned+web.jpg)
-
if my research was right, the C-130 tests actually proved fairly viable, in terms of takeoffs and landings. the reason it was never picked up was that the sheer size of the plane and the deck area that would have to be cleared to let it land and take off was just so large that it was a major disruption to operations, and would limit the number of planes that could be carried in the air wing (since they wouldn't be able to park as many on deck, in order to be able to clear them out of the way.)
so instead they developed a smaller Carrier delivery craft, the C-1 Trader, that could operate off carriers using the same catapult and arrester wire set ups as the fighters, and which would be more easily slotted into normal deck operations.
Yup. I found a video! https://youtu.be/ar-poc38C84
-
I recall reading that at one point, just to see if it would work, the pilot threw the plane into full reverse on the props while he was still about 10 feet above the deck. The total landing run from wheels-down to stop at that point was something idiotic like 30 feet, without a tailhook.
I wonder how the A-5 Vigilante was handled. I almost mistook the F-111 for it. She was just recon jet by the time F-111 came around.
-
Not sure if the F-111B had the problem, but the shot of it with the engines lit reminds me of the early trials of the Tomcat, when they found that the current blast deflectors on board the carriers were just fine for the Intruder, the Corsair, even the Phantom, but... not so much for the Turkey. (This was one of several reasons the Midway and Coral Sea never operated Tomcats, actually)
In this particular instance, the Tomcat lit both engines, knocked down the deflector, and melted the nose of the RA-5 on the other side. I'm trying to find the photo of the RA-5 afterwards, it's in a book I used to own- everything forward of the cockpit is just sort of drooping Concorde-style. Oops.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-501721e43d8e606c047f44d67300f499-c)
-
With the nose gear being longer on the A-5 i'm sure that the plane scrapped a couple of times on the carrier. The A-5 was a physically a big plane, but not in the weight department. The Midways did operate them for a little bit. The F-14 and the S-3 I guess was to much for them.
-
Not sure if the F-111B had the problem, but the shot of it with the engines lit reminds me of the early trials of the Tomcat, when they found that the current blast deflectors on board the carriers were just fine for the Intruder, the Corsair, even the Phantom, but... not so much for the Turkey. (This was one of several reasons the Midway and Coral Sea never operated Tomcats, actually)
In this particular instance, the Tomcat lit both engines, knocked down the deflector, and melted the nose of the RA-5 on the other side. I'm trying to find the photo of the RA-5 afterwards, it's in a book I used to own- everything forward of the cockpit is just sort of drooping Concorde-style. Oops.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-501721e43d8e606c047f44d67300f499-c)
Bearing in mind a little allowance for foreshortening effect, thats a fair visual comparison with the Hornet in the background.
-
If my memory serves me correctly, the Tomcat uses the same engines, the Pratt & Whitney TF30, as the F-111B, although the variant of the engine may differ. So you can probably expect similar issues would have arisen if the F-111B had made it into service.
-
Yup. I found a video! https://youtu.be/ar-poc38C84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5AI3YSV3M
also, this experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8HMPMYL19E
which is probably even crazier.
-
The non-skid must have been hell on the wing tips...
-
Hate to make an image of a U2 carrying a Rad-Egg landing on one of these and miss...
TT
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gBo3iLLIts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gBo3iLLIts)
just a bit seasonal.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5AI3YSV3M
also, this experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8HMPMYL19E
which is probably even crazier.
LOOK MA
NO HOOK
Classic! Surprised no JATO rockets used on those launches, but I guess they just didn't need them.
-
What surprised me was the C130 taking off the much shorter angled deck.
-
Much shorter, but much wider.
-
I didn't know this ship existed, but this is a 1:1 scale replica/reconstruction of the Imperial Chinese Navy's Dingyuan armoured cruiser / Ironclad. The original ship was launched in 1885 as the flagship of the Beiyang Fleet during the First Sino-Japanese War. The original ship had incredible amount of bad luck and wasn't as well designed. Ultimately the ship was sunk by scuttling, to avoid capture just before the fleet surrendered.
I was sort amazed a Imperial ship recreated by Chinese. What i was reading this replica fixed some of the problems with the original was the layout of the flying bridge, because it basically blocked the ship's main gun turrets from firing or risk blasting the occupants. There isn't terrible alot information on the Replica itself.
Pretty nice reconstruction!
(http://i.imgur.com/iErc3YK.jpg)
(http://cdnfile.op110.com.cn/files/646/image/20170708/%E5%AE%9A%E8%BF%9C%E8%88%B0_1499505900430.jpg)
-
Great reconstruction!
-
A leedle British humour at the commissioning of the HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Navy's first aircraft carrier in I don't know how long (aircraft pending)
(https://s18.postimg.org/7vhxd91zt/32x370g2fj201.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/ygkg8tc2x/DQcmsbz_VQAAWim_U.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/j7uiv1q49/z_Aqg_To5.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/gqiro1tft/317094.jpg)
-
LOL, i hope Queen didn't mind the sense of humor injected into the cake. That's awesome. :)
-
since it is being discussed over in the AFV thread..
the AMOS mortar system, on the CB90 patrol boat. video shows why they decided not to mount the system on the boat, and work on a bigger boat for it. (might be cancelled now, since the AMOS was)
(https://www.militaryimages.net/media/amos-naval-advanced-mortar-system.29794/full)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsxrNexjkY
-
Stridsbat 2010 Ny was cancelled in 2009 since its only purpose was to carry AMOS.
They might still - with different armament - have made sense as a replacement of the similar-sized Tapper class patrol vessels (23m boats, 62 tons displacement, 12 boats) which served as patrol and ASW units with crews from the Swedish Amphibious Corps. The Tapper class was subsequently supposed to retire in 2014 but they have been retained for Rule 4 reasons.
(https://abload.de/img/18239ooor.jpg)
-
Nice shot of a Zubr-class hovercraft
(https://s17.postimg.org/vlb8507lb/rwt9rnfi2z201.jpg)
for scale comparison
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Zapad-2009_military_exercises.jpg)
-
Zubr-Class Hovercraft suntanning with bikini Clad Russians.+
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=43186)
-
Zubr-Class Hovercraft suntanning with bikini Clad Russians.+
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=43186)
Go to the Beach have a great time with the family, and you get invaded. I guess only in RUSSIA!!
-
Always wondered if we could use a couple of these babies to ease the traffic getting in/out of Montreal. #P
-
https://www.facebook.com/rvpetrel/posts/1547178658650943 (https://www.facebook.com/rvpetrel/posts/1547178658650943)
I know, it's a Facebook post, but it's worth it. RV Petrel has discovered the wreck of Japanese 'super-destroyer' Shimakaze (oh she of the 40-knot speed and 15 torpedo tubes) at the bottom of the Pacific. Several photos from the wreck site are included, including some of those torpedo mounts, five-inch guns, a screw, etc.
-
That's a pretty and mad ship. I am glad she has been found.
Always loved the Shimakaza, the IJN had the best naming conventions.
-
Shimakaze (oh she of the 40-knot speed and 15 torpedo tubes)
Wait, what.
-
Wait, what.
Here you go, Wierdo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Shimakaze_(1942)
-
She was a bit of a beast back in the day, shame it was only a one-off. Not that it'd have done much to change the war, in all honesty, but as far as night attacks go, yikes. Especially when she's half the size of Kitakami and has a much smaller radar profile...
-
The URL is missing the close parenthesis...
-
For some reason it's not accepting the closing parenthesis.
-
Picture, thousand words, and all that.
That's not a ship, that's a torpedo battery with engines attached.
(https://s7.postimg.org/zcmhmku0r/shimakaze_hijms_1.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.org/efq9hxquz/28083038922_f6cb9b89d0_b.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.org/3swgciqff/ijn_shimakaze_destroyer_1943-34380.jpg)
and from the FB post:
(https://s7.postimg.org/5yqr6nbrv/25289300_1547178658650943_2827129448142393502_n.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.org/nosfrq7d7/25299275_1547103638658445_5293228057024838622_n.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.org/6bi5cuowr/25348840_1547103595325116_1175328454728681455_n.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.org/uf8x15f3f/25396087_1547103591991783_4413346543870927076_n.jpg)
-
Try it this way... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Shimakaze_(1942))
It looks like this:
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Shimakaze_(1942)]Try it this way...[/url]
-
Picture, thousand words, and all that.
That's not a ship, that's a torpedo battery with engines attached.
(https://s7.postimg.org/zcmhmku0r/shimakaze_hijms_1.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.org/efq9hxquz/28083038922_f6cb9b89d0_b.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.org/3swgciqff/ijn_shimakaze_destroyer_1943-34380.jpg)
and from the FB post:
(https://s7.postimg.org/5yqr6nbrv/25289300_1547178658650943_2827129448142393502_n.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.org/nosfrq7d7/25299275_1547103638658445_5293228057024838622_n.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.org/6bi5cuowr/25348840_1547103595325116_1175328454728681455_n.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.org/uf8x15f3f/25396087_1547103591991783_4413346543870927076_n.jpg)
The Long Lance Torpedo was such a awesome weapon that was ages ahead of any other torpedo at the time. I would put it on as many ships as I could also.
-
The Long Lance Torpedo was such a awesome weapon that was ages ahead of any other torpedo at the time. I would put it on as many ships as I could also.
Meh. The only thing that was of actual value was the higher speed giving ships less time to react which was a factor in the Naval Battles of Guadalcanal. Along with small wakes which were near impossible to spot at night.
-
The Type 93 could punch a thousand-pound-plus warhead in a 48 knot torpedo twenty thousand yards, with a max 500m spread at that distance. If you put it on slow, the same warhead travels at 36 knots out to 40,000m. Granted, you get a wider potential wander at that range, but there's something to consider. A hundred feet off the ground, that 20,000 meter range is over the visible horizon. You're busting torps at targets and they can't even see your ship launching, let alone the torps themselves.
What makes the Long Lance truly brutal? The USN Mark 15 torpedo had a fair explosive charge of 825 pounds, and a world-class range of 5,500m at 45 knots before the torpedo quits. If you slowed it down to 26 knots, you got it a touch past 13,000. So you're shooting back with 80% payload at 25% the range...
Granted, the LL was a delicate beast and was known for its technical failures. It's also notable that long range torpedo bombardments were...probably at the level of a drunken caveman throwing rocks at a duck, based on engagement data. But by god the American torpedoes were jokes for most of the war, compared to the Long Lance.
-
Granted, the LL was a delicate beast and was known for its technical failures.
You mean that it was known for exploding at the slightest provocation, which was pretty much guaranteed to destroy the ship carrying it.
-
The Torpedo Boat TB-27, USS Blakely. She was precursor to the modern Fast Attack Craft that seen in use to day.
The Torpedo Boats were huge threat to large ships, thus the development of the Torpedo Boat Destroyer which evolved into the modern Destroyer. She was armed with a three 1-pounder cannons and three 18 inch (450 mm) torpedo tubes which were properly loaded with Whitehead Torpedoes which had 800 to 1,800 yards or 3,700 meters.
She was one-off of sorts she was laid down in 1899 and commissioned in 1904. I found that a lot of the Torpedo boats of the time were similar in design, but they were made one at time using shared design characteristics but not serial production vessels we see today.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/USS_Blakely_%28TB-27%29_underway_off_Grant%27s_Tomb.jpg)
USS Blakely pictured here at the Huston-Fulton celebration 1909, with Grant's Tomb right in the background. She didn't have a lot to do during her active years, but she was a interesting design.
-
The Type 93 could punch a thousand-pound-plus warhead in a 48 knot torpedo twenty thousand yards, with a max 500m spread at that distance. If you put it on slow, the same warhead travels at 36 knots out to 40,000m. Granted, you get a wider potential wander at that range, but there's something to consider. A hundred feet off the ground, that 20,000 meter range is over the visible horizon. You're busting torps at targets and they can't even see your ship launching, let alone the torps themselves.
What makes the Long Lance truly brutal? The USN Mark 15 torpedo had a fair explosive charge of 825 pounds, and a world-class range of 5,500m at 45 knots before the torpedo quits. If you slowed it down to 26 knots, you got it a touch past 13,000. So you're shooting back with 80% payload at 25% the range...
Granted, the LL was a delicate beast and was known for its technical failures. It's also notable that long range torpedo bombardments were...probably at the level of a drunken caveman throwing rocks at a duck, based on engagement data. But by god the American torpedoes were jokes for most of the war, compared to the Long Lance.
The weight of the warhead is deceptive because USN used a more refined explosive compound while the IJN still used TNT.
"Torpex is a secondary explosive, 50% more powerful than TNT by mass." : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Blast_Explosive This is the USN version that they put in their Mark 15 torpedoes.
-
It's worth remembering that while the liquid oxygen used by Long Lance allowed it to do what it did, it was a double-edged sword. To put it in Battletech terms, it's the XL motor of WW2 warship design- it allows you to do things that conventional ideas won't allow, but man, if you start taking hits life starts to suck. This was compounded by Japanese ships carrying reloads for their tubes (something most nations didn't do).
(http://imageweb-cdn.magnoliasoft.net/nmm/supersize/n06027.jpg)
Our poster child for the dangers of liquid oxygen. Heavy cruiser Chokai was lost when her torpedos started cooking off in their tubes during the Battle of Samar, courtesy of a hit credited to the 5-inch gun on the fantail of USS White Plains (which would make this the only time an aircraft carrier sank an enemy warship via direct fire as well).
-
So they should have fired off a salvo of Long Lance at long range and then declared that they were "dumping ammo" before closing the distance with Taffy 3? ;)
-
So they should have fired off a salvo of Long Lance at long range and then declared that they were "dumping ammo" before closing the distance with Taffy 3? ;)
Well... I mean, kinda actually.
Something to consider is that during the operation, the smoke screen and aggressiveness of the American escort ships convinced the Japanese that they were up against heavy ships- some of the reports that survived on Japanese ship logs report 'confirmed' Essex-class carriers, heavy cruisers, one report even IDs a Pennsylvania-class battleship! In a case like that, throwing eight Long Lances (she had two four-packs on each beam) isn't the worst way to start things off- you can't see into the smoke screen very well, but that means they can't see OUT all that great either. No big deal for the radar-guided guns of the American 'cruisers', but their lookouts would still struggle to spot Long Lance wakes through all that crud. So just throwing them and seeing what happens isn't the worst move- at best, lucky hits, and if not at least throw the American formation into a chaotic mess of evasive maneuvering (not unlike the chaos the Japanese formation became, actually!). And of course, with the reload magazine, Chokai could be ready to fire again soon- it might not be REAL soon, but another salvo can be loaded, and if all else fails there's the tubes on the other side of the ship too.
The problem is, again, the double-edged sword side of things- it seems the reloads are what actually caused the fatal damage to begin with (CASE was not a standard feature on Japanese heavy cruisers), following the hit on the tubes the fires burned hot enough to start touching off AA/secondary gun magazines and the reload locker. Launching the first fish salvo and reloading wouldn't have helped much- the tubes were mounted port-and-starboard in two four-packs on each side, but the reloads were kept amidships. Emptying the tubes would just have meant the shell from White Plains still would have found a torpedo tube set (during reloading, one imagines), touching off the same fires and causing the same secondary explosions in the reload locker- which isn't AS full, but still has all the reloads for the far side of the ship sitting there waiting.
Hard to predict what REALLY would happen, of course- and it's even hard to really get a look at what DID happen, with Chokai being lost without any survivors (the few that lived died when the destroyer that rescued them was lost later in the battle). But yeah, firing those torpedoes at the impressive range Long Lance gives and just hoping for some luck wouldn't have been the worst idea for the Japanese, given the opponent they thought they were up against. It likely wouldn't prevent the loss of Chokai or the other ships they lost in that engagement, but it might have ensured a bit more effect on the Taffy fleet than they actually caused. With Long Lance being able to slice a heavy cruiser apart with one hit (such as USS Northampton, or USS Minneapolis), the idea of one hitting a CVE is disturbing.
-
The thing they really remind me of is the Hollander II: it's got a hell of a punch for something its size, but the second something goes wrong there's a really, really high risk of catastrophic existence failure.
-
Well... I mean, kinda actually.
Something to consider is that during the operation, the smoke screen and aggressiveness of the American escort ships convinced the Japanese that they were up against heavy ships- some of the reports that survived on Japanese ship logs report 'confirmed' Essex-class carriers, heavy cruisers, one report even IDs a Pennsylvania-class battleship! In a case like that, throwing eight Long Lances (she had two four-packs on each beam) isn't the worst way to start things off- you can't see into the smoke screen very well, but that means they can't see OUT all that great either. No big deal for the radar-guided guns of the American 'cruisers', but their lookouts would still struggle to spot Long Lance wakes through all that crud. So just throwing them and seeing what happens isn't the worst move- at best, lucky hits, and if not at least throw the American formation into a chaotic mess of evasive maneuvering (not unlike the chaos the Japanese formation became, actually!). And of course, with the reload magazine, Chokai could be ready to fire again soon- it might not be REAL soon, but another salvo can be loaded, and if all else fails there's the tubes on the other side of the ship too.
The problem is, again, the double-edged sword side of things- it seems the reloads are what actually caused the fatal damage to begin with (CASE was not a standard feature on Japanese heavy cruisers), following the hit on the tubes the fires burned hot enough to start touching off AA/secondary gun magazines and the reload locker. Launching the first fish salvo and reloading wouldn't have helped much- the tubes were mounted port-and-starboard in two four-packs on each side, but the reloads were kept amidships. Emptying the tubes would just have meant the shell from White Plains still would have found a torpedo tube set (during reloading, one imagines), touching off the same fires and causing the same secondary explosions in the reload locker- which isn't AS full, but still has all the reloads for the far side of the ship sitting there waiting.
Hard to predict what REALLY would happen, of course- and it's even hard to really get a look at what DID happen, with Chokai being lost without any survivors (the few that lived died when the destroyer that rescued them was lost later in the battle). But yeah, firing those torpedoes at the impressive range Long Lance gives and just hoping for some luck wouldn't have been the worst idea for the Japanese, given the opponent they thought they were up against. It likely wouldn't prevent the loss of Chokai or the other ships they lost in that engagement, but it might have ensured a bit more effect on the Taffy fleet than they actually caused. With Long Lance being able to slice a heavy cruiser apart with one hit (such as USS Northampton, or USS Minneapolis), the idea of one hitting a CVE is disturbing.
I take it you've never had to reload a torpedo... :-\
You're not going to do it in a battle, a torpedo magazine is only useful for reconstitution afterwards.
-
Doctrine on IJN reloading for cruiser/destroyer was to do it once they broke off from combat and then rejoin after reloading is done.
-
...catastrophic existence failure...
I need to remember that one. :))
-
I take it you've never had to reload a torpedo... :-\
You're not going to do it in a battle, a torpedo magazine is only useful for reconstitution afterwards.
I assume you mean aboard a surface ship... Submarines absolutely need to reload their tubes during combat.
-
I take it you've never had to reload a torpedo... :-\
You're not going to do it in a battle, a torpedo magazine is only useful for reconstitution afterwards.
Doctrine on IJN reloading for cruiser/destroyer was to do it once they broke off from combat and then rejoin after reloading is done.
Bingo. Not 'go home and reload at the dock' the way everyone else would, but also not while under direct fire. (Though if Kurita and his officers had known what was really going on they might have at least thought about it- who's afraid of destroyers and CVEs? ;) )
It's a complex and dangerous thing to do- doubly so when working with liquid oxygen! But it also was doable, if not in the heat of a firefight certainly by heading to its periphery before diving back in. (Still not a great idea, really, which is why the British, Americans, Germans, etc. declined the option)
-
Hindsight is 20/20. Chokai might as well have tried reloading, as things certainly couldn't have gone worse for her.
-
I assume you mean aboard a surface ship... Submarines absolutely need to reload their tubes during combat.
ish
while I will naturally defer to those with actual experience, a lot of the RN's WW2 era submarines had external torpedo tubes that could only be reloaded in port and a single reload for the others and an awful lot of the sinkings earlier in the war were with guns
I generally think of WW2 submarines as being torpedo boats with the capability to submerge for a little bit as opposed to the post-war boats that can stay underwater for a whole patrol (including non-nuke boats thanks to snorkels)
-
Hindsight is 20/20. Chokai might as well have tried reloading, as things certainly couldn't have gone worse for her.
Yeah, when you lose a gun duel to a CVE, things aren't going well, period. ;D
Nah, it's a fascinating action from the Japanese perspective. Kurita really thought he was engaging either Halsey's main fleet (due to the reports of Essex-class ships) or one of the major landing force support groups like Oldendorf's old-battleship squadron (which had engaged Nishimura's southern force already). The fact that the escorts were so bold convinced him that they had support from heavier ships to allow them to act this way. Throw in the mass air attacks from all three Taffy forces (despite lack of torpedoes or armor-piercing ordnance), Kurita being ill and having been fished out of the water after the loss of his flagship a few days prior, loss of Musashi... it all added up to a surprisingly cautious action by Japan's premier surface combat commander.
As I've said before, I strongly suggest Evan Thomas' masterpiece 'Sea of Thunder', which looks at the mindset and actions of four commanders during the battle (Kurita and Ugaki on one side, Halsey and Cmdr. Ernest Evans- skipper of the destroyer Johnston on the other. It's a very unique perspective on the battle, and as far as I'm concerned is a must-read on the topic, particularly the portions about Evans. The idea of running a destroyer in the face of something like the Kongo is equal parts insane and brave, and it gives a great idea of what it was like on board during those attacks.
-
I'm... impressed by the bulkiness contrasted quite nicely in this:
(https://abload.de/img/bulkyrtpr4.jpg)
Front - F331 Alvares Cabral (Meko 200 FFG)
Center - D640 Georges Leygues (Georges Leygues DDG)
Back - L9014 Tonnerre (Mistral class LHD)
-
I'm... impressed by the bulkiness contrasted quite nicely in this:
(https://abload.de/img/bulkyrtpr4.jpg)
Front - F331 Alvares Cabral (Meko 200 FFG)
Center - D640 Georges Leygues (Georges Leygues DDG)
Back - L9014 Tonnerre (Mistral class LHD)
I like big hulls and I cannot lie...
-
So much prettier than them sea pyramids
-
With such tall profile, wouldn't that make Tonnerre more vulnerable to taking damage should enter a active combat zone?
-
With such tall profile, wouldn't that make Tonnerre more vulnerable to taking damage should enter a active combat zone?
Charlie6 tells us that it is bad form to ever allow the enemy to shoot at the amphibious warfare vessels
-
I suspect that with modern weaponry, that kind of height difference won't really change things. I'll bet that modern missiles would hit or miss a hypothetical vessel that's identical to a Mistral in every way while being shorter just as often.
-
With modern technology, e.g. profile recognition softwares, the differences between a frigate, tanker and HVT like an amphib would be more obvious to modern AShMs too.
Naw, as Doc Monkey says and in tangential relation to the Taffy discussion earlier, if your landing force is being fired upon you are in trouble. Though antimissile defences of amphibs these days are better than ever, they really shouldn't be in a position to be shot at.
-
It's a complex and dangerous thing to do- doubly so when working with liquid oxygen! But it also was doable, if not in the heat of a firefight certainly by heading to its periphery before diving back in. (Still not a great idea, really, which is why the British, Americans, Germans, etc. declined the option)
LOX is some nasty stuff if things go wrong. I had to take a class on oxygen systems when I was active, as my Nitrogen loading system had to be partially Oxygen clean so it could purge the Electrolytic Oxygen Generators, and they showed a video of what happens when an aircraft LOX bottle was discharged in a confined space. It wasn't pretty at all. IIRC, the guy was bleeding off a LOX bottle in an office, and there wasn't much left of him, the bottle, and the contents of the office.
With such tall profile, wouldn't that make Tonnerre more vulnerable to taking damage should enter a active combat zone?
Well decks make a ship proportionally higher. Gotta have space to flood down. In an interesting use, Dock Landing Ships were used as transports for NR-1. This is USS Carter Hall(LSD-50) preparing to take the deactivated NR-1 to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard from Portsmouth NSY.
(http://navsource.org/archives/08/551/0854702b.jpg)
-
Yeah, oddly oxygen is a nasty stuff best kept at a safe level
Just heard on the news that HMS Queen Elizabeth is apparently taking on enough wáter to need repairs. Already. Oops.
-
Just heard on the news that HMS Queen Elizabeth is apparently taking on enough wáter to need repairs. Already. Oops.
that is what sea trials are for.
not that it will stop hay being made of the issue by the media.
-
Just heard on the news that HMS Queen Elizabeth is apparently taking on enough wáter to need repairs. Already. Oops.
Wow. Did they remember to weld the hull when they put those modules together? ???
-
It's a first in class, and their first ship in this type and size in...how long? Of course it's going to have issues. There's a reason I'm also paying absolutely no heed to any similar reports coming from Zumwalt, and that my only real issue with the LCS series is that they're building so many of them before the kinks got worked out.
-
Yeah, non-issue. It goes back a long, long way- sea trials are supposed to catch this stuff, and what do you know, they did! I know I've pointed out the teething problems the North Carolina-class battleships had in the past here as a noteworthy example, but every class goes through it- and very few come through without anything that needs some repair or redesign.
Better to catch it now while steaming around the UK than in a combat situation in some god-only-knows corner of the globe where a drydock might not be available, after all.
-
totally agree with you all that this isn't really an issue but it is amusing and the overall response is also very stereotypically British
the amount coming in sounded like a lot but I did not pay all that much attention to the numbers - I've just checked and it is 200L/hour which proportionately sounds like very little
my understanding was that essentially all ships leak a bit and so have bilge pumps working either all of the time or at least some of the time
the BBC News site says the leak is around one of the propeller shafts which is even less worrying/a known "hole" in the ship and I guess the leak is just a suboptimal seal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42406138
-
Wait, it's just 200 liters an hour? Pfffft, who cares? That's nothing on a ship that big, as long as you keep up with it. Hell, I'm pretty sure USS Massachusetts takes on at least that much, and she's been happily anchored for a few decades now. ;D
(Which gives me an excuse to post a pic of the monster)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f8/8e/07/f88e076fd4d57e5947c2ccb38d5dc4e9--uss-massachusetts-uss-oklahoma.jpg)
-
With modern technology, e.g. profile recognition softwares, the differences between a frigate, tanker and HVT like an amphib would be more obvious to modern AShMs too.
For scale of what's possible with modern technology, the German Navy is (or rather, for the past couple years has been) evaluating systems onboard its frigates that compile radar/EO/IR return from a target vessel and based on its 3D silhouette automatically identify the ship class based on profiles in its database - down to the individual ship if visible differences exist.
In the (non-networked) trial version it apparently then displayed that along with the relevant entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, including possible other matches if there's overlap - and the possibility for the crew to add more identifiers/markers to the silhouette - if the vessel was IDed another way - for future encounters.
the BBC News site says the leak is around one of the propeller shafts which is even less worrying/a known "hole" in the ship and I guess the leak is just a suboptimal seal
They're apparently repairing her while moored at a quay in Portsmouth, so it's not even that - probably just something you can't plug while you need the propeller ready to run.
-
Wait, it's just 200 liters an hour? Pfffft, who cares? That's nothing on a ship that big, as long as you keep up with it. Hell, I'm pretty sure USS Massachusetts takes on at least that much, and she's been happily anchored for a few decades now. ;D
Love that girl. She was drydocked in South Boston's (when they still had?) Drydock (only dock) there. What I understand they paid some outside outfit to do maintenance on her hull. She too big i suspect for the Charlestown's historical Drydock.
-
For scale of what's possible with modern technology, the German Navy is (or rather, for the past couple years has been) evaluating systems onboard its frigates that compile radar/EO/IR return from a target vessel and based on its 3D silhouette automatically identify the ship class based on profiles in its database - down to the individual ship if visible differences exist.
In the (non-networked) trial version it apparently then displayed that along with the relevant entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, including possible other matches if there's overlap - and the possibility for the crew to add more identifiers/markers to the silhouette - if the vessel was IDed another way - for future encounters.
*snip*
Got a link?
-
As US looks like it's walking away from Rail guns, the chinese are trying to make it work.
Popular Mechanics published a article about this. (https://www.popsci.com/an-electromagnetic-arms-race-has-begun-china-is-making-railguns-too)
If there any solid truth about it, the 2nd Batch of the Type 55 Class Destroyer supposedly designed to carry the weapon should be successful with it.
(http://www.eastpendulum.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-06-28-Croiseur-ou-destroyer-Les-d%C3%A9tails-sur-le-premier-Type-055-27.jpg)
-
Is it just me or do parts of that image look CGI-ed (the phased array panels)?
-
Colors are weird looking. I purposely looked for actual picture of it, this is it. The ship is super new, the US Navy classifies it as a Cruiser instead of a Destroyer.
It's 13,000 tons, with 112 VLS missile tubes and a 130m cannon. This is the first batch of the ship.
(http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2017/june/Type-055_17.jpg)
-
Colors are weird looking. I purposely looked for actual picture of it, this is it. The ship is super new, the US Navy classifies it as a Cruiser instead of a Destroyer.
It's 13,000 tons, with 112 VLS missile tubes and a 130m cannon. This is the first batch of the ship.
(http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2017/june/Type-055_17.jpg)
It's a cruiser, the Chinese refer to it as such. >.<
For scale of what's possible with modern technology, the German Navy is (or rather, for the past couple years has been) evaluating systems onboard its frigates that compile radar/EO/IR return from a target vessel and based on its 3D silhouette automatically identify the ship class based on profiles in its database - down to the individual ship if visible differences exist.
In the (non-networked) trial version it apparently then displayed that along with the relevant entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, including possible other matches if there's overlap - and the possibility for the crew to add more identifiers/markers to the silhouette - if the vessel was IDed another way - for future encounters.
They're apparently repairing her while moored at a quay in Portsmouth, so it's not even that - probably just something you can't plug while you need the propeller ready to run.
Most of what you suggest has been possible for years, through ISAR/SAR radar, adding EO/IR into the mix is redundant, but may be reasonable for aircraft. You also don't want Janes, just putting that out there, it's an open sourced document which will cost an ongoing fee for however many logins you want for it, making it an expensive addition that is potentially out of date.
-
As US looks like it's walking away from Rail guns, the chinese are trying to make it work.
Popular Mechanics published a article about this. (https://www.popsci.com/an-electromagnetic-arms-race-has-begun-china-is-making-railguns-too)
If there any solid truth about it, the 2nd Batch of the Type 55 Class Destroyer supposedly designed to carry the weapon should be successful with it.
(http://www.eastpendulum.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-06-28-Croiseur-ou-destroyer-Les-d%C3%A9tails-sur-le-premier-Type-055-27.jpg)
that's a pretty old article.
-
Interesting thermal exhaust on that thing, looks like it's really wide and designed with some kind of dispersal. It feels like there's something inside there, maybe a cooling system - pump cold air from outside the ship directly into the exhaust, set it so you get even coverage like a lawn sprinkler. Might help for IR stealth?
-
Colors are weird looking. I purposely looked for actual picture of it, this is it.
I have no doubt it is a real photo, it just looks like certain elements in the photo have been altered/enhanced. Whether that is for dis-information or propaganda reasons I do not know.
-
Interesting thermal exhaust on that thing, looks like it's really wide and designed with some kind of dispersal. It feels like there's something inside there, maybe a cooling system - pump cold air from outside the ship directly into the exhaust, set it so you get even coverage like a lawn sprinkler. Might help for IR stealth?
Do you mean her smokestacks? they're not installed yet. The concept art looks kinda short IMHO, I'm no ship expert but it looks like anybody aft of the stacks is going to catch a lot of soot and smoke - including that helideck.
(https://s13.postimg.org/uwoyd8g9j/Type055-_Concept.jpg)
-
Do you mean her smokestacks? they're not installed yet. The concept art looks kinda short IMHO, I'm no ship expert but it looks like anybody aft of the stacks is going to catch a lot of soot and smoke - including that helideck.
(https://s13.postimg.org/uwoyd8g9j/Type055-_Concept.jpg)
You don't get much soot or smoke from GTRBs, not like the old diesels. Her SATCOM will get a little filthy, but that's about it. She's actually arranged really well, with maximum access to the upper decks, those HF antenna being where they are will minimise HERP, but I still wouldn't want to be up there with Dragon Eye flashed up.
On the whole, she's a fairly plain lady, very conventional, a lot like our new Hobart Class. But then again, they aren't made for aesthetics. I note the lack of cross canistered ASCM, wonder if they are planning on later fit or having them in the VLS cells.
-
You don't get much soot or smoke from GTRBs, not like the old diesels. Her SATCOM will get a little filthy, but that's about it. She's actually arranged really well, with maximum access to the upper decks, those HF antenna being where they are will minimise HERP, but I still wouldn't want to be up there with Dragon Eye flashed up.
On the whole, she's a fairly plain lady, very conventional, a lot like our new Hobart Class. But then again, they aren't made for aesthetics. I note the lack of cross canistered ASCM, wonder if they are planning on later fit or having them in the VLS cells.
Ah okay. As I said - I'm no ship designer :D
The stepped pyramid look is an intriguing Russian/Western design fusion innit? Type 55 is a direct analogue of the US Tico/Virginias, designed to escort the 3 planned CVs.
Yes, other than the advanced radar she is mainly a "bigger = better", "moar dakka" design - no major advances in weapons fit here. IIRC it has been said that her antiship/cruise missiles will be loaded forward where there's lots of space and minimal height, and SAMs loaded aft since it won't matter that they'll have to point upwards to clear those side bulkheads.
-
USS Roosevelt, Arabian Gulf, Dec 2017. Pretty. Note RAM launcher forward.
(https://s13.postimg.org/yu3huk047/38005950045_4969620e5d_o.jpg)
big link at: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4573/38005950045_4969620e5d_o.jpg
-
Do you mean her smokestacks? they're not installed yet. The concept art looks kinda short IMHO, I'm no ship expert but it looks like anybody aft of the stacks is going to catch a lot of soot and smoke - including that helideck.
(https://s13.postimg.org/uwoyd8g9j/Type055-_Concept.jpg)
ITs a big ship over 13000 tons. Not as Big as the Zumwalts but more armed with 120+ missle tubes vs the 80 on the Zumwalts.
-
ITs a big ship over 13000 tons. Not as Big as the Zumwalts but more armed with 120+ missile tubes vs the 80 on the Zumwalts.
Zumwalts are more for the guns and attack missiles. The Type 55 is general purpose Guided Missile Destroyer, heck Zumwalt wasn't suppose to have been a Guided in it's designated. That was done for the class survive the approval process.
-
Got a link?
Only in German (http://www.dmkn.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Seiten-aus-MF-04-06-2.pdf), from 2014. The system is called KEOD and it's not a commercial product - development was inhouse with the Bundeswehr. The linked article was written by the project manager at the time. Screenshot from that article (for version 3.0 - the system has had a couple iterations since 2005 (!)), and yes it's probably that fuzzy and unlegible intentionally:
(https://abload.de/img/screen-keod3uq0m.jpg)
Upper right (1) is a direct feed from the MSP500 electrooptic sensor system, lower right (2) is the recognized silhouette, (3) is the main menu and (4) is the database entry. The system automatically saves the last twenty minutes from the MSP500 feed with a rollover as a "CCTV" function through which you can freely scroll back and forth through the feed.
The default operation according to the article is that the operator goes through the feed looking for a good contour picture (the system assists him by giving him some sample models of military and civilian units), then quickly traces the contours on the screen and for further detail may additionally mark e.g. turret positions. The operator can also add already recognized features such as nationality, pennant number or hull form. The system then goes through its database for the closest matches and portrays the JSF entry along with a 3D model from its database for comparison. This whole procedure supposedly takes around 30 seconds per target for the operator, so apparently it doesn't need you to do anything difficult like painfully sketch it out. ^-^
KEOD according to the article at the time was fitted to all ships with MSP500 MIRADOR or - for submarines - the compatible Seerohr 14/15, with introduction on K130 corvettes starting back then in 2014. From a cursory overview out of all ships afloat only the six boat squadron tenders and the sail training ship not being fitted with it at that time. It's overall a pretty low-key system that better no one mentions ( ;)) but that is in continous use and ongoing development.
There are a couple development targets mentioned in the article, mostly subject to first upgrading the hardware it runs on (which was planned for 2014):
- Operator library, i.e. the operator can add new contacts not in its database; 3D models for these would be automatically generated from the pictures taken. They already had a demonstrator for that in 2014.
- Automatic (AI-driven) contour recognization and the system automatically setting markers for recognized structures (e.g. masts) so the operator just needs to glance over whether those are right and pretty much has the target entry immediately.
- Integration into combat management system, enriched by offboard sources such as AIS
From a quick look at "science projects" of the University of the Bundeswehr - where development is being done and where they're equally mum about it - it looks like step two of the above has been realized by now. The last hardware update order for it - 64 COTS servers plus specific capture cards and video cards - was in August this year, so we can guess there was a recent software update necessitating that. They apparently now also have a similar system for objects at sea other than ships. Which interestingly isn't mentioned on the English version of the same site, only on the German version...
Most of what you suggest has been possible for years, through ISAR/SAR radar, adding EO/IR into the mix is redundant, but may be reasonable for aircraft.
Radar is active. Active is evil.
You also don't want Janes, just putting that out there, it's an open sourced document which will cost an ongoing fee for however many logins you want for it, making it an expensive addition that is potentially out of date.
I know the reputation of Jane's in the professional industry. If you want a simple source so that the operator can compare what they're seeing to, it's good enough though.
-
I know the reputation of Jane's in the professional industry. If you want a simple source so that the operator can compare what they're seeing to, it's good enough though.
plus i suspect they aren't using the actual online version, but rather something more like an offline archive built from the Jane's data.
-
Yeah, apparently the database is even tailored - and has additional entries and such - specifically for each mission theater that a ship is deployed to. That seems to be more a result of how they enrich the JFS information with their own data which has to be generated first of course. I'd assume that the actual entries in the database are more of a slapdash of Jane's and Weyer's (German counterpart to Jane's) along with the inhouse-generated 3D models.
The initial recognition rate of KEOD in the first year or so was pretty bad apparently too - anecdotally supposedly proposing a Kirov for a Combattante III.
-
Thanks for the translation Kato! O0
-
Hopefully (for the sake of the families of the crew), it does not take this long to find the San Juan
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-21/hmas-ae1-submarine-found-after-century-long-search/9278782 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-21/hmas-ae1-submarine-found-after-century-long-search/9278782)
-
Yeah, apparently the database is even tailored - and has additional entries and such - specifically for each mission theater that a ship is deployed to. That seems to be more a result of how they enrich the JFS information with their own data which has to be generated first of course. I'd assume that the actual entries in the database are more of a slapdash of Jane's and Weyer's (German counterpart to Jane's) along with the inhouse-generated 3D models.
The initial recognition rate of KEOD in the first year or so was pretty bad apparently too - anecdotally supposedly proposing a Kirov for a Combattante III.
When i was in my late teens i was crazy for Jane's Fighting Ships. My school had old 1977 edition of the book. When i joined the service, my family sent me latest edition of the book which was 100 bucks or so. Now printed book cost's is insane. Now they're getting away from the book which kinda sad. However, it's different world now i guess.
-
*snip*
Radar is active. Active is evil.
*snip*
Not true, stupid use of radar is idiocy, however if you have an informed process from acquisition through to end use, then radar can be supremely useful without the evil.
-
That depends a great deal on the capabilities of your adversaries relative to yours.
-
Any EM spectrum exposure is something to be avoided in symmetric warfare. If they don't see you they can't target you.
The ships that KEOD is mounted on even includes German ELINT vessels btw, and those are more than capable enough of identifying a ship in other ways. Passively.
-
That depends a great deal on the capabilities of your adversaries relative to yours.
To the same extent as every other facet of warfare. Even for the least capable navy a blanket statement of active = evil is disingenuous at best. EW is far too complex to be summed up in a such a simple statement.
Any EM spectrum exposure is something to be avoided in symmetric warfare. If they don't see you they can't target you.
The ships that KEOD is mounted on even includes German ELINT vessels btw, and those are more than capable enough of identifying a ship in other ways. Passively.
Your first statement is old Cold War thinking, from when radars were rare and distinctive. The world has changed considerably since then, and now a vessel that doesn't radiate is considered noteworthy. There are significant advantages and disadvantages to running EMCON silent, and knowing when to radiate and when not to is part of the operational art.
I'm not saying there's no utility to this system, just that it breaks no new ground. On intelligence gatherers it's brilliant, on warships in peace time it's useful for enriching the plot, as a weapons targeting system? Nope, not very useful. If you need to be in visual range to exploit it's utility, sorry, it's pretty pointless. There are UAV/RPV systems that do very much the same thing, including the libraries, without the threat to the host platform.
-
For a "least capable" navy (or smuggler) going up against a modern one, it's a good first approximation. And I doubt "least capable" navies (having had to work around some of them) even have the concept of "operational art". Heck, I'm not sure some of them even grasp "operations".
I do agree it's not particularly useful for targeting weapons, but I don't think that's what it was designed for. These days, everyone is an intelligence collector.
-
For a "least capable" navy (or smuggler) going up against a modern one, it's a good first approximation. And I doubt "least capable" navies (having had to work around some of them) even have the concept of "operational art". Heck, I'm not sure some of them even grasp "operations".
I do agree it's not particularly useful for targeting weapons, but I don't think that's what it was designed for. These days, everyone is an intelligence collector.
I agree wholeheartedly, with a but. Those least capable navies simply aren't going to fight a strategic navy, certainly not on their own, and can be discarded from the deck. EMCON is a reasonable way for a mid-level navy to expand the effects it can generate, not rise to parity. A superior opponent will remain a superior opponent, but you can generate more effects against them using EMCON than without.
-
I agree wholeheartedly, with a but. Those least capable navies simply aren't going to fight a strategic navy, certainly not on their own, and can be discarded from the deck. EMCON is a reasonable way for a mid-level navy to expand the effects it can generate, not rise to parity. A superior opponent will remain a superior opponent, but you can generate more effects against them using EMCON than without.
On that note - which navies qualify as "mid-level" at this point?
Major navies of consequence I can only think off the top of my head are the Royal Navy, French, German, Italian, possibly Spanish navies, Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Korean navies... on top of the Russian and US navies obviously.
-
I'd qualify the Aussie as mid-Level, even though much of their gear is top notch. I'd leave Spain as mid-Level, too. India is slowly moving to the upper echelons as more new ships keep coming online every year. China and the US are at the top of the heap as the Russians are fading.
-
Yep we have good gear, that is well maintained and operated by well trained professionals. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the numbers that we need to be able to sustainable maintain the operational tempo that we should be maintaining.d
-
Back to pictures. First, from the Age of Sail, the HMS Serapis
(http://www.ericsoller.com/images/HMS-Serapis-450.jpg)
and her 20th Century namesake
[img width 599]http://jnapics.s3.amazonaws.com/public/war/hms_serapis.jpg[/img]
-
On that note - which navies qualify as "mid-level" at this point?
Major navies of consequence I can only think off the top of my head are the Royal Navy, French, German, Italian, possibly Spanish navies, Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Korean navies... on top of the Russian and US navies obviously.
The RN is heading towards mid-level recently. Not quite there yet.
As others have said, Australian, Indonesian, Malaysian, take your pick, there are several out there. Mostly from smaller nations or the more advanced developing nations, although several of the European nations are mid-level as well. It's all got to do with how much money is being spent on it.
-
American Civil War era Gunboat, Commodore Perry. Undated, but it's good bet's in mid 1860s. She named for Matthew Perry, who open up Japan with his famous black ships.
Built in 1859 as a passenger steamer, Interestingly when she was commissioned she was crewed by Army personal vs Navy. The ship was part of the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron, manned by the detachment from the 9th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment. She operated semi-close to the coast, she helped capture Confederate held islands like Roanoke Island, stopped Ships running the blockade, and exchanging fire with Confederate shore facilities.
Here you see the USS Commodore Perry during the years she was active during the war. I think it amazing picture to even exist, given how high angle it's being taken. I wasn't big into civil war era vessels and there were so few i knew of that had images of them. I just saw names, descriptions and what they had done.
(http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cwpb/02100/02180v.jpg)
She certainly a gunboat, the union must been hard pressed for ships to take a side-wheel river ferry to do battle with the Confederacy as a Blockade ship. Iron Clad would have torn into her if they got serious about sinking her.
Front view from being taken at Pamunkey River, Va. in 1864
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/USS_Commodore_Perry_%281864%29.jpg)
-
The RN is heading towards mid-level recently. Not quite there yet.
As others have said, Australian, Indonesian, Malaysian, take your pick, there are several out there. Mostly from smaller nations or the more advanced developing nations, although several of the European nations are mid-level as well. It's all got to do with how much money is being spent on it.
The Msians are having a budget crunch (then again who isn't) and have always been little more than a green-water navy. Some recent attempts to rationalise the navy at last though.
In that vein and continuing the small-boat tour... this fierce little corvette used to be the Msian navy's premier combatants in the Cold Wars. The Laksamana (Admiral) class however have now all been retired, its weapons long expired. Before that she disposed of 675 tons, a 76mm gun, a Dardo CIWS turret, 6 Otomat SSMs, triple Eurotorp tubes and a 4-shot Aspide SAM launcher.
(https://s31.postimg.org/6lcq8a5rf/image.jpg)
-
On that note - which navies qualify as "mid-level" at this point?
Major navies of consequence I can only think off the top of my head are the Royal Navy, French, German, Italian, possibly Spanish navies, Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Korean navies... on top of the Russian and US navies obviously.
Honestly, I only consider the US and Russian navies to be first rank at this point. The Russians may be on the way down, but they've recently done quite a bit to slow their decline. The Chinese are on their way up, but they're not there yet, and proficiency-wise, the Russians have them hands down. The RN (sadly) hasn't been first rank for some time (and I say that with an RN officer in my staff section). If they continue to reconstitute their carrier capability they might be able to reclaim first rank status, but they'll have to buy quite a few more surface combatants too, all while maintaining their submarine force. "Expensive" doesn't even begin to cover it.
-
Honestly, I only consider the US and Russian navies to be first rank at this point. The Russians may be on the way down, but they've recently done quite a bit to slow their decline. The Chinese are on their way up, but they're not there yet, and proficiency-wise, the Russians have them hands down. The RN (sadly) hasn't been first rank for some time (and I say that with an RN officer in my staff section). If they continue to reconstitute their carrier capability they might be able to reclaim first rank status, but they'll have to buy quite a few more surface combatants too, all while maintaining their submarine force. "Expensive" doesn't even begin to cover it.
Are the Russians really all that more capable than the French and British navies? I don't know how effective the Italian and Spanish fleets would be away from home or the Med
-
Are the Russians really all that more capable than the French and British navies? I don't know how effective the Italian and Spanish fleets would be away from home or the Med
Consider that the British Royal Navy's spent the last thirty years reducing their capabilities. (actually more like fifty years, but the Falklands, yanno?)
Consider also that the French navy's been doing the same thing. It's honestly not hard to imagine that the Russians, who ran into a rough patch under Yeltsin, might have been spending some time doing staff work and figuring out how to achieve Tsar Peter's dream of a strong Russian naval force as a benchmark of being a first-class civilization, particularly at a time when Western Europe's been focused on passing off those jobs to the Americans (because they're expensive, and in the zero-sum game of taxes, credit and budget...along with the ending of rivalries that drove national pride and surrender of 19th century and earlier imperial assets)...
-
Consider that the British Royal Navy's spent the last thirty years reducing their capabilities. (actually more like fifty years, but the Falklands, yanno?)
Consider also that the French navy's been doing the same thing. It's honestly not hard to imagine that the Russians, who ran into a rough patch under Yeltsin, might have been spending some time doing staff work and figuring out how to achieve Tsar Peter's dream of a strong Russian naval force as a benchmark of being a first-class civilization, particularly at a time when Western Europe's been focused on passing off those jobs to the Americans (because they're expensive, and in the zero-sum game of taxes, credit and budget...along with the ending of rivalries that drove national pride and surrender of 19th century and earlier imperial assets)...
The RN and the French has the SSNs with cruise missiles, SSBNs with their canned sunsets and at least some amphibious projection capability
I suspect a lot of the Russian assets are about as seaworthy as HMS Victory
-
In that vein and continuing the small-boat tour... this fierce little corvette used to be the Msian navy's premier combatants in the Cold Wars.
The Laksamana class was only commissioned around 1997 in Malaysia after being laid up at Fincantieri for 15 years since they couldn't export them to their original customer Iraq - who did receive the remaining two ships this summer, with only a 34-year delay on delivery...
Back in the Cold War - '89 - the Malaysian Navy consisted in noticable assets of:
- a British 2300t modified Leopard-class GP frigate (original ASW equipment removed when bought, originally built for Ghana then commissioned in the RN and sold on later to Malaysia)
- two German 1850t HDW FS1500 escort frigates with 8 Exocet plus torpedo tubes
- a British 1600t light frigate with Limbo ASW mortar and a helo deck (original Sea Cat removed in 1982; moved to official training role in 1992)
- two Korean 1300t OPVs with helo decks (one built locally; at the time considered corvettes to my knowledge)
- four French 260t La Combattante IIa missile boats with 4 Exocet
- four Swedish 240t Spica-M missile boats with 4 Exocet
The two OPVs were transferred to the Coast Guard in 2006, replaced by the first two Kedah class OPVs. The two British frigates were replaced by the two Lekiu class frigates ordered in the early 90s and delivered in 1999 (the training frigate is still in service in that role; the second was turned into a training ship at that time, then turned into a museum ship 2008-2011 and sank at its pier this year). The two FS1500 and all eight missile boats from Cold War time remain in service.
-
The RN and the French has the SSNs with cruise missiles, SSBNs with their canned sunsets and at least some amphibious projection capability
I suspect a lot of the Russian assets are about as seaworthy as HMS Victory
The Russians have kept up their subs too, with their Boreis and Yasens, and they're still banking on their giant Kirovs and Slavas
(https://russiandefpolicy.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/vladimir-monomakh-and-yuriy-dolgorukiy-in-gadzhiyevo.jpg)
@Kato - damn really? the Laksamanas feel so much older than that...
From what I hear the eight missile boats are pretty much gunboats at this point, as most if not all their missiles have expired without replacement.
-
Are the Russians really all that more capable than the French and British navies? I don't know how effective the Italian and Spanish fleets would be away from home or the Med
The RN and the French has the SSNs with cruise missiles, SSBNs with their canned sunsets and at least some amphibious projection capability
I suspect a lot of the Russian assets are about as seaworthy as HMS Victory
I hate to say it, but yes. The point about the Russians is that maybe "a lot" of their assets aren't seaworthy, but they have enough assets that that doesn't mean as much as it would to the navies that have been economizing since 1989 (and before).
-
Scroll about halfway down at this link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy
You find the Todd and Lindberg scale for naval rankings. It is referencing a chart produced after Canada lost both a command ship and underway replenishment ship in 2015 from budget cuts or some such.
-
"Blue Water Navy" appears to be a useful definition, but doesn't really get after the same thing I'm talking about. And I find it interesting what they consider to be "adjacent", given Russian power projection into Rule 4 territory over the last few years.
-
"Blue Water Navy" appears to be a useful definition, but doesn't really get after the same thing I'm talking about. And I find it interesting what they consider to be "adjacent", given Russian power projection into Rule 4 territory over the last few years.
I didn't focus so much on that as the drop off between what is required for #1 and #2. Going from multiple and sustained worldwide to just a one-off worldwide is a massive reduction in capacity.
-
Absolutely, and honestly, the way they seem to define it, I'm not sure the RN or Marine Nationale qualify as being able to "sustain" a "major" power projection operation on their own. It's hard to sustain a 1.0 presence when you only have one hull (and the RN isn't even up to that yet... sea trials don't count). They're both more than capable of doing it with an Ally (or two). The Russians have the capacity, just no reason to sustain an operation further away than the Med. What's interesting on that page is what they say about the Russians further down the page compared to what they say about the RN and MN.
-
Just ran into this...USS Lewis Puller cruising with a French Mistral LHD during a Naval Exercise while be escorted by a French Horizon Class Frigate/Destroyer.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mZSEyZuSOao/Wjk75e-Eu_I/AAAAAAABgRA/-Ty1f6EBbAI9xJVMiVhwmu5u3mgv9ePPQCLcBGAs/s1600/121417-Z-N1234-004.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CFgXpdPjUOE/Wjk74fdbqbI/AAAAAAABgQ4/zeE5ADt3uhYILB8uFlPCxSV10cH0Ke07ACLcBGAs/s1600/121417-Z-N1234-002.jpg)
-
The RN and the French has the SSNs with cruise missiles, SSBNs with their canned sunsets and at least some amphibious projection capability
I suspect a lot of the Russian assets are about as seaworthy as HMS Victory
that reflects a single capability-one that is only useful if you're ending the world. What they don't have, is the ability to de escalate a situation. for example, projecting power to suppress piracy or protect trade routes, or to fight a war like the Royal Navy did in 1980 against a lesser power without making the kiddies glow in the dark.
for those missions, they end up leaning on the U.S. to do the bulk of the lifting. the main check on the Russian navy isn't a military deficiency, it's a weak economy and widespread political corruption, meaning they still have the ABILITY to project credible power, and to maintain an expeditionary fleet, except that they can't do it with their administration problems and available resources-but those problems and resources CAN be marshalled with a change in leadership, whereas it would require Britain and France to undergo major leadership changes AND major building and training programmes to get BACK the capabilities they've been giving up for decades.
and with the cultural trends in GB and France, there's no guarantee they'd be able to maintain the level of competence at the expansion of numbers. (IOW you can give them more hulls, but it doesn't mean the crews are going to be any good, and that extends all the way from Seaman Recruit to First Lord in the case of Great Britain. Not enough veteran ship-drivers, not enough veteran DC personnel, etc.)
you can think of it as a side-effect of becoming hyperspecialized, even the design on the QE series shows it, with the split superstructure and difficulties the class is experiencing in sea trials-the British no longer have the experience to maintain or crew a powerful non-submarine fleet.
-
Well, everybody's been coasting off Cold War-era resources and we're now entering the stage where recapitalisation is becoming absolutely necessary. Without (thankfully) so urgent a threat as before, most militaries are downsizing in all branches.
But there's the rub - while the French or British armed forces are definitely in decline, so is nearly everyone else, except China and India. As such they are probably going to be able to deal with most anybody else, except the latter two.
While it looks like it might take 2 decades for the Brits to fully regenerate, at least unlike most of the world, they are committed to doing it:
(https://s31.postimg.org/xb13e6amz/vhako1beic501.jpg)
-
Well, everybody's been coasting off Cold War-era resources and we're now entering the stage where recapitalisation is becoming absolutely necessary. Without (thankfully) so urgent a threat as before, most militaries are downsizing in all branches.
But there's the rub - while the French or British armed forces are definitely in decline, so is nearly everyone else, except China and India. As such they are probably going to be able to deal with most anybody else, except the latter two.
While it looks like it might take 2 decades for the Brits to fully regenerate, at least unlike most of the world, they are committed to doing it:
(https://s31.postimg.org/xb13e6amz/vhako1beic501.jpg)
Lol, a fine English morning. :-)
That's a beauty of a photo.
-
The British are trying a little bit of a rebuild and rearm of their military forces. The French not so much in fact are having problems with what they have, let alone growing. Nations like Italy and Australia are building up. Who would of thought that the Aussies would have 2 Helo Carriers??
-
The British are trying a little bit of a rebuild and rearm of their military forces. The French not so much in fact are having problems with what they have, let alone growing. Nations like Italy and Australia are building up. Who would of thought that the Aussies would have 2 Helo Carriers??
Have you SEEN how much territory they have to cover with SAR missions? They have 2, they need MORE, but what they've got is what they can afford.
-
Plus, it takes at least 3 hulls to sustain 1.0 presence anywhere. Only two means constant gaps.
-
Can't they use HMAS Choules to fill the gap on a limited basis?
-
"Limited basis" means exactly that, not "sustained operation".
-
Australia is doing pretty good for only having so many people living there. Same problem as Canada. Very economic powerful with nobody in the country. 13th in GDP but 51st in population with a whole lot of coastline. At least Canada can call the USA to help....Australia can...but it takes a while.
-
Eh, 7th Fleet is only a day or two away (assuming there aren't any ships calling in Australian ports at the time of the crisis).
-
Croatian Navy Kralj-class missile boats in tight formation, taken from the deck of a Helsinki-class missile boat
380 tons, Bofors 57mm gun, AK-630 CIWS and RBS-15 SSMs... a rather curious combination.
(http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Archive/Images/2016/04/29/brija.jpg)
-
The Yugoslavians during the last 80s got the idea of adding CIWS guns to their missile boats and bought them wholesale in the Soviet Union.
The older Koncar class boats designed in the 70s (a heavily modified redesign of Swedish Spica-M) had one of their 57mm turrets removed and replaced with a AK-630 too; their original P-20 missiles were replaced with RBS-15 at the same time. Since these modifications were going on just around the time the war broke out some of the Koncars never went through it - the two Montenegrin units for example still run with two 57mm and two P-20.
More curious in my opinion about the Croatian Navy are these:
(https://abload.de/img/1735291fvq8t.jpg)
Yes, those are Hispano-Suiza HS.804. Which Yugoslavia has been license-building since 1951.
-
throwback to the MTBs of WW2... that's a lot of dakka! well what do you do when you can't get Vulcan 20mms? make do with four single-barrels strapped together.
These ROKN Chamsuris have the real deal though... with two M61 Vulcan Gatlings per boat in those aft bubble turrets
(https://s9.postimg.org/tjm2ll0gf/5928784683_a75dc399db_o.jpg)
-
well what do you do when you can't get Vulcan 20mms? make do with four single-barrels strapped together.
Why stop at four though?
(https://abload.de/img/1507108u9x.jpg)
Spanish Meroka CIWS. 12x 20mm. Technically fires its salvos at 9,000 rpm - it volley-fires though instead, at a cyclic rate of only 120 12-round volleys per minute. Spanish Navy estimates a 87% kill propability with a single volley.
-
Why stop at four though?
(https://abload.de/img/1507108u9x.jpg)
Spanish Meroka CIWS. 12x 20mm. Technically fires its salvos at 9,000 rpm - it volley-fires though instead, at a cyclic rate of only 120 12-round volleys per minute. Spanish Navy estimates a 87% kill propability with a single volley.
.....soo much questions....how the hell they feed ammunition into that unholy mess of a gun mount
-
What's the secondary barrel for?
-
What's the secondary barrel for?
that's not a barrel, that's a vent.
-
It seems small for a vent. I thought maybe it was a flare gun or something.
-
Spanish Meroka CIWS. 12x 20mm. Technically fires its salvos at 9,000 rpm - it volley-fires though instead, at a cyclic rate of only 120 12-round volleys per minute. Spanish Navy estimates a 87% kill propability with a single volley.
Somehow I imagine the Meroka and Phoenix arguing like kids:
"You're just a gussied-up Gatling gun!"
"Oh yeah? Well you're a Nordenfelt!"
How accurate are these estimated Pks anyway? ::)
What's the secondary barrel for?
I'm betting optics.
-
*snip*
How accurate are these estimated Pks anyway? ::)
I'm betting optics.
Agree on the likely optics, probably a boresight camera or similar.
The PK is reasonably accurate, for the missiles it's calculated against. The big advantage with the Meroka is that it has a far larger field of coverage, where a Vulcan needs to pinpoint a stream towards the missile. A lot more redundancy for a maneuvering missile.
However, there are missiles out there now which have special anti-CIWS features including terminal weaves which make shooting them down quite challenging.
-
I can't imagine how the gunners dealt with trying fire M29-class monitor's 6 inch guns like pictured here on HMS M33. Semi-Armored crew likely working outside of the gun protection under enemy fire...
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3557/3365029073_237ba41694_o.jpg)
-
how the hell they feed ammunition into that unholy mess of a gun mount
Two belts, one for the upper and one for the lower row. After each volley is fired the belts are moved forward by a full six rounds which are then stripped and fed to the six guns in that row. Takes 0.2 seconds to feed all six.
-
I can't imagine how the gunners dealt with trying fire M29-class monitor's 6 inch guns like pictured here on HMS M33. Semi-Armored crew likely working outside of the gun protection under enemy fire...
rum
-
My god, someone modernized the mitrailleuse.
-
Lagoon Company.
(http://offbeatoregon.com/assets-2014/1401c.pt-658-worlds-only-working-pt-boat/sptb-37-knots-420.jpg)
Actually, it's a vintage PT Boat that was restored and as of 2014 found a permanent home in Portland, Oregon.
-
I can't imagine how the gunners dealt with trying fire M29-class monitor's 6 inch guns like pictured here on HMS M33. Semi-Armored crew likely working outside of the gun protection under enemy fire...
Would be pretty standard for 6-inch guns of the time, regardless of the ship class.
(https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/A00100/screen/4151731.JPG)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/HMCS_Niobe_6_inch_gun_firing_Niobe-DNDUnkn02.jpg/640px-HMCS_Niobe_6_inch_gun_firing_Niobe-DNDUnkn02.jpg)
-
Lagoon Company.
(http://offbeatoregon.com/assets-2014/1401c.pt-658-worlds-only-working-pt-boat/sptb-37-knots-420.jpg)
Actually, it's a vintage PT Boat that was restored and as of 2014 found a permanent home in Portland, Oregon.
Hm, that's not an Elco...yeah, it's a Higgins 78 footer. Easiest tell is the gun mounts, the Elcos were split at about 1 oclock and 7 oclock from each other, while the Higgins were paired like that.
A really big picture of 658 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Aerial_view_PT658_at_35knots_Columbia_River_October_2014.jpg)
Note the guy sitting in the God Chair of the Bofors AA in back giving the photographer the eye...
-
Well, this is interesting. Norway is building a Ship Tunnel. (yes this isn't built product)
(https://eus-www.sway-cdn.com/s/bEuVPEjR64Gjyplv/images/SvJNe30KWFIXam?quality=728&allowAnimation=true&embeddedHost=true)
The Tunnel is called the Stad Ship Tunnel is planned to span 1.7 kilometres in lenght, 37 metres in height and 26.5 metres in width.
That's crazy...hope they have good controls over if the water get's rough.
-
Well, this is interesting. Norway is building a Ship Tunnel. (yes this isn't built product)
There's quite a couple of ship tunnels actually (mostly in France and Germany) - they're just usually not that big. And they're generally not sea-to-sea, but inland.
The oldest still usable ship tunnel - also the longest worldwide - is the Souterrain de Riqueval on the St.Quentin canal in France. It's 5.67 km long, with a second tunnel on the same canal being 1.09 km long. Both tunnels - with a canal inbetween - replaced an original project from the 18th century with a 13.7 km long ship tunnel that was cancelled shortly before completion.
The Souterrain de Riqueval is somewhat unusual in that ships require a tug to pull them through it. The tug is electrically powered these days and pulls itself along on a 8 km long chain while towing ships behind it. There's a video of it entering the tunnel with two ships on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsEUqqCwN0Q and a video from inside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3vVdEAYCYM
-
Well, this is interesting. Norway is building a Ship Tunnel. (yes this isn't built product)
(https://eus-www.sway-cdn.com/s/bEuVPEjR64Gjyplv/images/SvJNe30KWFIXam?quality=728&allowAnimation=true&embeddedHost=true)
The Tunnel is called the Stad Ship Tunnel is planned to span 1.7 kilometres in lenght, 37 metres in height and 26.5 metres in width.
That's crazy...hope they have good controls over if the water get's rough.
actually they are installing the tunnel to avoid rough waters. the route the ships have to take now requires them to sail through an area that is well known for rough water, storms, and ship damage. the tunnel is meant to bridge between the two calmer areas and increase the safety.
http://gcaptain.com/worlds-first-ship-tunnel-to-bypass-dangerous-seas-in-norway/
-
I hope they have sea walls to deflect any waves going into the tunnels otherwise the lines would have very flat tops
EDIT it is a picture thread so here's a shock test on a US aircraft carrier
-
Ships of the US Army (Ocean-Going, not riverine)
Runnymede-class Large Landing Craft (1100 tons full load)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/LCU2000_class_landing_craft.JPG)
MGen Nathanael Greene-class Tugboat (939 tons)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/USAV_Major_General_Henry_Knox.JPG)
Gen Frank S. Besso-class Logistics Support Vessel (4266 tons)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/LSV-7_SSGT_Robert_T_Kuroda.jpg)
-
USS Harry S Truman and Abraham Lincoln in caught in port for the 2017 Coastal Snow Storm.
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=43655)
Glad i was West Coaster and in the Pacific when i was in. No Shoveling for me!
-
Gen Frank S. Besson-class Logistics Support Vessel (4266 tons)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/LSV-7_SSGT_Robert_T_Kuroda.jpg)
Those are pretty much World War II style LST's. There were a couple berthed in the channel at Pearl when my boat stopped their.
-
USS Harry S Truman and Abraham Lincoln in caught in port for the 2017 Coastal Snow Storm.
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=43655)
Glad i was West Coaster and in the Pacific when i was in. No Shoveling for me!
Somewhere I have a picture of snowball fight on the flight deck of the WASP back in '99.
-
I bit the bullet the other night, bought "Cold Waters" on Steam
Effectively an updated version of the old Microprose "Red Storm Rising"
(http://cdn.edgecast.steamstatic.com/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/27768464/bfa348ebd237856ab58389f04a18f88f9c4482a2.jpg)
I am still going through the tutorials in preparation for my first single mission, starting on "easy" but need to work up to "hard" before I take on the full campaign (I view them to be training missions in preparation for the full campaign).
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/x6VO7KKd76Y/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
I'm eyeing it up on Gog which apparently has a chunk off at the moment
-
Wow, nice graphics. Are you stuck in the sub or you can use anything? I remember playing PHM Pegasus for Commodore 64, it was a fun naval. Cold Water looks impressive.
-
I was watching What on Earth? a Discovery Channel show about a Russian Foxtrot in an English Moor the other night.
Black Widow was it's name...
TT
-
Natasha Kerensky was her captain. Oops sorry. #P
-
I'm eyeing it up on Gog which apparently has a chunk off at the moment
Yep, I saw the Gog 20% off offer after I had paid full fare on Steam >:(
Wow, nice graphics. Are you stuck in the sub or you can use anything? I remember playing PHM Pegasus for Commodore 64, it was a fun naval. Cold Water looks impressive.
Stuck in a sub, I get the impression the community is modding the game so you may be able to play other ships with a mod but I have not investigated. At the moment you can only choose a cold war American fast attack nuclear sub but the developer has said that they are working on i688 and Seawolf classes. There are currently two North Atlantic campaigns set in 1968 and 1984 (which suit the submarines and ships in the game at the "height" of the cold war). The developer is working on a South China Sea campaign (I assume set in the 1990s or 2000s with the i688 and Seawolf availabe). The community appears to be screaming for a Soviet/Russian campaign (ie make the Soviet/Russian boats playable) which would be a logical step to expand the game.
Very playable so far, I have only been doing the tutorials on "easy" and it is easy. I assume as I ramp it up to "medium" and "hard", the difficulty level will get much more realistic.
-
What kind of Russian ship is that firing the Missle. Don't look familiar.
-
From a quick skim through the game's ship recognition guide, I believe (and I am no ship expert) it is a Kara-class guided missile cruiser aka Project 1134B Berkut B - Беркут Б (Golden Eagle)
(http://i.imgur.com/IvQ4NiO.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Project_1134B_Kerch_2009_G1.jpg)
-
Pennant number 713 => Kara class cruiser Kerch.
Only one that is still around, even if it's considered in reserve after a fire in 2014.
-
Heard a rumor that HMS Ocean is getting sold to Brazil. Any truth to this?
-
Heard a rumor that HMS Ocean is getting sold to Brazil. Any truth to this?
I have seen this also. I think that might be true. I guess it will be a helo carrier unless there is some vtol aircraft on the order books that they will be getting.
-
Yep, I saw the Gog 20% off offer after I had paid full fare on Steam >:(
Stuck in a sub, I get the impression the community is modding the game so you may be able to play other ships with a mod but I have not investigated. At the moment you can only choose a cold war American fast attack nuclear sub but the developer has said that they are working on i688 and Seawolf classes. There are currently two North Atlantic campaigns set in 1968 and 1984 (which suit the submarines and ships in the game at the "height" of the cold war). The developer is working on a South China Sea campaign (I assume set in the 1990s or 2000s with the i688 and Seawolf availabe). The community appears to be screaming for a Soviet/Russian campaign (ie make the Soviet/Russian boats playable) which would be a logical step to expand the game.
Very playable so far, I have only been doing the tutorials on "easy" and it is easy. I assume as I ramp it up to "medium" and "hard", the difficulty level will get much more realistic.
Jive Turkey and the Mighty Jingles have some videos covering Cold Waters. The Mighty Jingles even has a couple where he is playing a modded version that adds campaigns, including a Russian one. If these were current features of the game as shipped by the developers I'd be all over this game.
But so I can actually put a picture in a picture thread have a screen shot of my Leander from the Halloween 2017 event in World of Warships. I love how the paint actually looks like it is glowing.
-
I have seen this also. I think that might be true. I guess it will be a helo carrier unless there is some vtol aircraft on the order books that they will be getting.
I'd be astonished if that ship can handle -35s, so if they're not buying any Harriers I suspect helicopters only.
-
Heard a rumor that HMS Ocean is getting sold to Brazil. Any truth to this?
It is quite possibility considering the number of ex-RN vessels in Brazilian Navy service. But there have been no official announcements by the RN at all.
What is definitely true is that HMS Ocean is to be retired. This is all according to longstanding schedule despite the hay being made of it. She's built to commercial standards, nearing the end of her military life and takes up too much manpower for the RN. She was designed as a cheap one-off gap-filler and did her job spectacularly.
I highly doubt the Brazilian Navy can or should operate any meaningful fixed-wing carrier air, VTOL or not. Probably they will use her for HADR ops.
-
Would completely agree with Kidd with that assessment. HMS Ocean is a LPH essentially by US Standards. It's damn shame UK isn't able to afford another like her to replace her properly. The carriers might be able to do, but it would be over kill.
The Brazilians need aircraft carrier, but they don't seem to either afford to make one or have someone give it to them at low rate. Brazil's aircraft would be limited to bases or they would have to purchase 3rd hand Harrier Jets or pay high price for some F/A-35Bs.
If their able, i think could possible get Spain to make perhaps larger carrier that could handle their A-4s or newer catapult launch aircraft.
-
Would completely agree with Kidd with that assessment. HMS Ocean is a LPH essentially by US Standards. It's damn shame UK isn't able to afford another like her to replace her properly. The carriers might be able to do, but it would be over kill.
The Brazilians need aircraft carrier, but they don't seem to either afford to make one or have someone give it to them at low rate. Brazil's aircraft would be limited to bases or they would have to purchase 3rd hand Harrier Jets or pay high price for some F/A-35Bs.
If their able, i think could possible get Spain to make perhaps larger carrier that could handle their A-4s or newer catapult launch aircraft.
HMS Ocean is basically being replaced by the Queen Elizabeth class.
The Brazilians don't need an aircraft carrier, not when they are a brown-water Navy composed of a bunch of OPVs, a handful of corvettes and a pair of ex-RN Type 22s.
Few countries are able to afford carriers at this point, let alone a full-size conventional cats-and-traps carrier.
-
Few countries are able to afford carriers at this point, let alone a full-size conventional cats-and-traps carrier.
Brazil just started retiring theirs in February this year. A replacement carrier is supposedly "third priority" on their list of acquisitions. First priority are SSN, second are new corvettes.
As for HMS Ocean, there were only two countries interested in her. Brazil and Turkey. The cost for Brazil was one quarter that of what it would have cost to modernize Sao Paulo to serve until at least 2030 - given the >50% capability loss they'll need to operate Ocean till 2025 at least now...
If their able, i think could possible get Spain to make perhaps larger carrier that could handle their A-4s or newer catapult launch aircraft.
Eh, given their connections and e.g. past training on Sao Paulo they're far more likely to go for something Chinese. I could see them buying Liaoning in a decade or so.
As for aircraft, it's not like there isn't some choice on the market nowadays. Current STOBAR capable aircraft with ski jump launch capability on offer are pretty exactly: Rafale M, Gripen M, F/A-18, F-35, MiG-29K, Su-33 and J-15.
-
Brazil just started retiring theirs in February this year. A replacement carrier is supposedly "third priority" on their list of acquisitions. First priority are SSN, second are new corvettes.
As for HMS Ocean, there were only two countries interested in her. Brazil and Turkey. The cost for Brazil was one quarter that of what it would have cost to modernize Sao Paulo to serve until at least 2030 - given the >50% capability loss they'll need to operate Ocean till 2025 at least now...
Yeah well, how useful has Foch/Sao Paulo really been?
Its not enough IMHO to buy any old thing from the secondhand-carrier dealership and declare oneself a "carrier power" (cough Naruebet cough). There's also the question of the air wing, AA/ASW escorts, replen vessels, and last but not least operational training and availability... a lot more things make up a real carrier capability than just the ship.
-
I'd really recommend Cold Waters, its a very good game, its quite hard and unforgiving but rewarding. The modding community is very big, and there's been fan made stuff that's added subs from a US Gato class SS all the way up to the Seawolf II or 'what if' subs like the Alfa II and all the Soviet subs and Western and SEA region subs you can think of. You can find and download the mods and apparently they are also working on surface ships as well. The makers of the game are also close to releasing an expansion which will take you into the Far East.
I'd suggest watching Jive Turkey's stuff, he's an ex USN sonar operator and did tours on LA and Ohio class subs. His vids are usually quite informative too as he'll talk about what he can.
And as for the game being a bit slow at times, this is true, sub warfare isn't fast. But when it's fast...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQOB9PdSyE&t=245s
(note he does not normally have music in his vids, for this one he added dramatic music :) )
well that happens. And no he does not normally dress up, it was the halloween stream. And the disco coloured LA class he's driving was done for him, its the USS Stayin' Alive (she plays Bee-gee's music when firing off her active sonar) and was modded on his suggestions giving her a realistic reload time of around 7 minutes.
-
I discovered just how hard it is, still on "easy" and tried my first single mission, a duel against an enemy SSN. Have had my backside whipped twice so far.
(https://assets.rockpapershotgun.com/images//2017/09/coldwaters02-620x323.jpg)
-
Yep, I saw the Gog 20% off offer after I had paid full fare on Steam >:(
Stuck in a sub, I get the impression the community is modding the game so you may be able to play other ships with a mod but I have not investigated. At the moment you can only choose a cold war American fast attack nuclear sub but the developer has said that they are working on i688 and Seawolf classes. There are currently two North Atlantic campaigns set in 1968 and 1984 (which suit the submarines and ships in the game at the "height" of the cold war). The developer is working on a South China Sea campaign (I assume set in the 1990s or 2000s with the i688 and Seawolf availabe). The community appears to be screaming for a Soviet/Russian campaign (ie make the Soviet/Russian boats playable) which would be a logical step to expand the game.
Very playable so far, I have only been doing the tutorials on "easy" and it is easy. I assume as I ramp it up to "medium" and "hard", the difficulty level will get much more realistic.
/shudder
As much as I love Navy stuff, the idea of simulating oceanic warfare in my leisure time? Nope, not for me.
Looks nice though. :-)
-
Brazil just started retiring theirs in February this year. A replacement carrier is supposedly "third priority" on their list of acquisitions. First priority are SSN, second are new corvettes.
As for HMS Ocean, there were only two countries interested in her. Brazil and Turkey. The cost for Brazil was one quarter that of what it would have cost to modernize Sao Paulo to serve until at least 2030 - given the >50% capability loss they'll need to operate Ocean till 2025 at least now...
The story of Brazil and fixed-wing carrier air has been remarkable. I knew it was bad, but didn't know it was this bad until taking a closer look:
Brazil bought ex-Colossus-class carrier Minas Gerais in 1960, but she only operated helis and S-2 Trackers for most of her life. She installed a catapult and Brazil acquired 23 ex-Kuwaiti Skyhawks (20 fighters, 3 trainers) but the Skyhawks only began operating in early 2001... until Minas Gerais decommissioned in October 2001.
Minas Gerais, ex-Vengeance
(https://s9.postimg.org/my9wg8ny7/mdb-minas-gerais.jpg)
She was replaced in early 2001 by ex-Clemenceau-class carrier Sao Paulo, which has been an endless maintenance nightmare for the Brazilian Navy: Sao Paulo suffered a catapult explosion in 2004 and ever since seems to have spent more time tied up than underway.
Sao Paulo, ex-Foch
(https://s9.postimg.org/cphf9ya1r/1024px-_Sao_Paulo_at_sea_11522051596.jpg)
While trying to make her seaworthy Brazil upgraded 12 of its Kuwaiti Skyhawks (9 fighters and 3 trainers) with Israeli systems aiming to get both carrier and fighters operational in 2010, but due to work delays the upgraded Skyhawks were only delivered in 2015 and 2016.
An intended 8 C-2 Turbo Traders supposed to be fitted for COD and AEW never got refurbed or delivered due to legal issues. Sao Paulo left a long refit in 2011, suffered another fire in 2012, rejoined the fleet late 2013, and seems to have sailed only sporadically on short training hops since then until Brazil officially gave up on Sao Paulo in February 2017.
-
She installed a catapult and Brazil acquired 23 ex-Kuwaiti Skyhawks (20 fighters, 3 trainers) but the Skyhawks only began operating in early 2001... until Minas Gerais decommissioned in October 2001.
Could have been interesting if at that point they had picked up the French Alize fleet instead which were retired with their Clemenceaus in 2000. Basically a Tracker replacement with modern electronics upgraded in the 90s (including datalinks etc), capable of performing CAS and strike missions in addition to ASW and general patrol; available in a AEW configuration too. Still very sturdy at the time, France last flew them on hot missions off of Foch in Yugoslavia in '99.
-
I recall someone asked quite a while back if there was a Western VLS-launched missile which uses little steering rockets to tip over the missile in the right direction upon launch. Could not remember at the time, but the answer is the Sea Ceptor, the Royal Navy's newest point-defence missile and the naval branch of the Common Anti-air Modular Missile family which is developed from the American ASRAAM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl-US7xdIX4
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/570/73570/p1699887.jpg)
-
The Spanish have always had carrier's in their fleet when they could get them.
The first one, which was old an American Independence-Class aircraft carrier, the Cabot who would be taken into service with the Spanish Armada known as the Dédalo (english translation is Daedalus). She would become flagship of her fleet until her retirement in 1989. She was brought back to the states to become a museum ship. However, the non-profit wasn't able pay their bills and she was sadly scrapped in 2002 after being auctioned.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/SNS_Dedalo_%28R01%29_underway.jpg)
-
I recall someone asked quite a while back if there was a Western VLS-launched missile which uses little steering rockets to tip over the missile in the right direction upon launch. Could not remember at the time, but the answer is the Sea Ceptor, the Royal Navy's newest point-defence missile and the naval branch of the Common Anti-air Modular Missile family which is developed from the American ASRAAM.
ASRAAM is British having started as an Anglo-German project
The US opted to upgrade the Sidewinder rather than adopt it
The Germans apparently wanted a different emphasis (manoeuvrability over range) and so developed the IRIS-T apparently due to the findings of analysis of Soviet designed missiles after German reunification
To quote Wikipedia
"In the 1980s, NATO (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/file:///wiki/NATO) countries signed a Memorandum of Agreement (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/file:///wiki/Memorandum_of_Agreement) that the United States would develop the AMRAAM, while a primarily British and German team would develop a short-range air-to-air missile to replace the Sidewinder. The complete team included the UK (Hawker Siddeley, by this point known as BAe Dynamics) and Germany (Bodensee Gerätetechnik (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/file:///w/index.php?title=Bodensee_Ger%C3%A4tetechnik&action=edit&redlink=1)) sharing 42.5% of the effort each, Canada at 10%, and Norway at 5%. The US assigned this missile the name AIM-132 ASRAAM."
-
apparently due to the findings of analysis of Soviet designed missiles after German reunification
Germany quit the ASRAAM project in 1989 already, followed by a project analyzing patterns of interception in air patrol accounting for increased stealth and density of aircraft in patrolled airspace. This coincidentally came to similar requirements as the Soviet R-73 that Germany inherited in 1990, and thus led to the IRIS-T project while the R-73 was kept in regular service on German MiG-29.
-
Germany quit the ASRAAM project in 1989 already, followed by a project analyzing patterns of interception in air patrol accounting for increased stealth and density of aircraft in patrolled airspace. This coincidentally came to similar requirements as the Soviet R-73 that Germany inherited in 1990, and thus led to the IRIS-T project while the R-73 was kept in regular service on German MiG-29.
My bad for misunderstanding the timeline
I'm also going to edit the appearance of the Wiki quote I stuck on as it did not cut&paste well when done on my iPad
-
On a side note, to turn this back to naval matters have a submarine IRIS-T launcher:
(http://i58.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/8b/1009a7402ab98bc8c2c9fc33337df58b.jpg)
-
Didn't know ASRAAM was British. Surprisingly for NATO there's a lot of different air-to-air missiles used.
On a side note, to turn this back to naval matters have a submarine IRIS-T launcher:
(http://i58.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/8b/1009a7402ab98bc8c2c9fc33337df58b.jpg)
Cute. Operational or experimental still?
-
Still experimental. Current live test-firing campaign (from submarines, under hot mission conditions) has been running the last two years at the Andoya spaceport in Norway and has supposedly faced some problems here and there - but they're rather secretive about such things as usual.
If they'll ever be introduced it will be likely on the joint German-Norwegian U212NG class that will enter operational service in the second half of the 2020s and that may also feature other guided missile systems (sub-launched NSM successor in particular).
-
Concepts of Lock-Mart's proposals for the USN FFG program
(https://s9.postimg.org/vtm878m8f/FDIPH9_B.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/no4692q9r/LCS_125_m_FFG_X_Lockheed_Martin_DSEI_2017_1.jpg)
Remember chaps
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/078/174/a69.gif)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/500fcd8f56ca1462caafae5ff2cfb751/tumblr_ox5k5k4ect1vfqhbwo1_1280.jpg)
-
Great pic, Marauder648. Any info to go with it?
-
I want to know as much about the poor sap that took that picture as the ship in it! The seas I've seen that were that high were accompanied by 50 knot winds and snow...
-
Concepts of Lock-Mart's proposals for the USN FFG program...
I think the most impressive part of both models is the radar. One looks like it has some sort of baby AESA panels and the LCS 125 has some pretty serious fire control radars sprouting out of it as well.
-
Great pic, Marauder648. Any info to go with it?
Apparently its HMAS Vidal in a huge swell some time in 1940. Although I can't find her, only a HMS Vidal which was a survey ship from the 50's. So I'd say its that :) And that there was no HMAS Vidal.
-
I think the most impressive part of both models is the radar. One looks like it has some sort of baby AESA panels and the LCS 125 has some pretty serious fire control radars sprouting out of it as well.
actually the Lockheed FFG is supposed to have a version of the AEGIS radar system.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-ships/lockheed-welcomes-u-s-plan-to-use-its-combat-system-for-frigates-idUSKCN0QQ2DO20150821
-
Apparently its HMAS Vidal in a huge swell some time in 1940. Although I can't find her, only a HMS Vidal which was a survey ship from the 50's. So I'd say its that :) And that there was no HMAS Vidal.
Likely to be HMS Vidal and very unlikely to be HMAS Vidal as the jack being flown at the bow of the ship is the Union Jack of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If it was HMAS Vidal the jack should be an Australian National Flag. The RAN did not have a separate Australian White Ensign until 1967, so in 1940 would still be flying the White Ensign same as RN ships from the gaff, yardarm or stern but the Australian National would be flown as a jack from the bow. For example, here is a photo of HMAS Sydney in 1920 flying the Australian National Flag from the bow and the White Ensign (same as used by the RN) from the stern while dressed to commemorate the visit of the Prince of Wales.
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/Sydney%20%286%29.jpg)
And for reference, the White Ensign:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Naval_Ensign_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg)
Union Jack:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg)
Australian National Flag:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Flag_of_Australia.svg)
Australian White Ensign (adopted by the Royal Australian Navy in 1967):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Naval_Ensign_of_Australia.svg)
The reason the RAN ended up adopting the Australian White Ensign in 1967 was because it was deemed to be inappropriate for the RAN to be flying another country's ensign (especially when we were involved in the Vietnam War, which the UK was not involved in).
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/500fcd8f56ca1462caafae5ff2cfb751/tumblr_ox5k5k4ect1vfqhbwo1_1280.jpg)
Looks faked to me
-
The American FFG ideas look pretty neat.
-
I hope it turns out good. Way this been panning out for years has always gotten bit warped. I half to laugh when people were so critical about the LCS. The ship was part of a 3-ship family that never came out right or at all. Large warship, medium warship, then LCS in different form which performed lesser tasks. Guess which ship survived changes of leadership and had other people changing their names.
-
actually the Lockheed FFG is supposed to have a version of the AEGIS radar system.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-ships/lockheed-welcomes-u-s-plan-to-use-its-combat-system-for-frigates-idUSKCN0QQ2DO20150821
Ahh, then it is some sort of SPY-1 variant. For some reason I had it in my head that they were upgrading those radars from the passively scanned panels to newer actively scanned ones, but I guess not. I know the active arrays are becoming popular for fighter jets, but I guess the 'ole SPY-1 is still getting the job done. Wikipedia mentions a SPY-1F variant which uses smaller panels sized for a frigate-type vessel, so maybe that is what they are proposing. A more powerful/capable radar is a pretty serious expense even when you are talking about naval warships, but it is also one of the core technologies that determines how lethal a ship is. You know the navy is serious about making these things more lethal than the LCS not because of all the VLS cells or harpoon tubes scattered around, but because of the rather serious radar systems being shown. I mean, without the fire control radar, you might as well just park a HIMARS on the deck and start lobbing artillery rockets...Oh wait. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nye4pxO88_Y)
-
That FFG concept with the Aegis radar reminds me of the Spanish Alvaro de Bazan class frigates.
-
The Australian Navy reworked the Spanish Alvaro de Bazan class frigates into their Air Defense Destroyer.
I'm not sure why they thought by saying's it a destroyer after another navy established it as a Frigate changes the nature of the beast....if it had additional VLS Launcher other than it's forward 32-Cell Mk41 VLS i'd be incline to believe it but...it doesn't
Aside from the Aegis, it's what i would expect from a Guided Missile Frigate. Then again, a stripped down version is being offered as one of the FFG prospects for the US Navy teamed up with Bath Iron Works.
-
The Hobart class has 48 VLS cells and will be equipped with Standard SM2 missiles - jury's out as to the sensitive issue of the SM3/SM6 ballistic missile defence variants. The Hobarts will carry at least as many missiles as a RN Type 45 and probably more considering she can quad pack ESSMs. As she doesn't currently carry Tomahawks, then she would carry as many SAMs as a strike-loaded Arleigh Burke, ie 48 cells worth - probably around 40 SM2s and 32 ESSMs.
So there's no reason not to call it a destroyer I think. FWIW anyway, as designations make little matter - but as a matter of fact she fulfills both US and UK definitions of "destroyer"; the former as a large surface combatant, the latter as an air-warfare ship capable of area/fleet defence.
-
Looks faked to me
Nope, not faked at all, just a matter of perspective. It's taken from a small boat, in the trough of a wave, I've seen something similar with an FFG. Let me tell you, a RHIB is a really, really scarey place in heavy seas in the middle of the night.
The ship is just cresting a sizable swell. Remember, even the smallest wave in the ocean is millions of tons of water, dwarfing even the largest ship in terms of mass.
-
I thought they were going to refit the Type 45's to be able to carry the TLAM. It would be costly and take a while but would help the capability of the ships.
-
I thought they were going to refit the Type 45's to be able to carry the TLAM. It would be costly and take a while but would help the capability of the ships.
Well, they need to fix the engines don't they?
-
The Australian Navy reworked the Spanish Alvaro de Bazan class frigates into their Air Defense Destroyer.
I'm not sure why they thought by saying's it a destroyer after another navy established it as a Frigate changes the nature of the beast....if it had additional VLS Launcher other than it's forward 32-Cell Mk41 VLS i'd be incline to believe it but...it doesn't
Aside from the Aegis, it's what i would expect from a Guided Missile Frigate. Then again, a stripped down version is being offered as one of the FFG prospects for the US Navy teamed up with Bath Iron Works.
I believe (and NightLord can correct me if I am wrong) it is a matter of convincing the bean-counters at Treasury and the politicians under the hill to sign the approvals and the cheques for the Air Warfare Destroyers. If the Navy called the Hobart-class an Air Warfare Frigate, then the bean-counters and the political advisors would say why are we paying so much for another class of frigate, just build more ANZAC-class frigates (at most lengthen them and add more VLS tubes) without understand the true difference in capabilities. So Navy has avoided this difficult discussion by calling them an Air Warfare Destroyer and thus it is a separate capability that the ANZAC-class frigates do not deliver.
-
I believe (and NightLord can correct me if I am wrong) it is a matter of convincing the bean-counters at Treasury and the politicians under the hill to sign the approvals and the cheques for the Air Warfare Destroyers. If the Navy called the Hobart-class an Air Warfare Frigate, then the bean-counters and the political advisors would say why are we paying so much for another class of frigate, just build more ANZAC-class frigates (at most lengthen them and add more VLS tubes) without understand the true difference in capabilities. So Navy has avoided this difficult discussion by calling them an Air Warfare Destroyer and thus it is a separate capability that the ANZAC-class frigates do not deliver.
Sort of...
Navy doesn't actually get to choose what type of vessel they are, that's done by government. It's a long, involved process, but ultimately this is all done by Defence, rather than Navy. In all honesty, it was more along the lines of Navy asking "What is this? We requested a Destroyer, not a Frigate!" But it's a decidedly vertical relationship, if you know what I mean. :-) Employment is most of what defines the various categorisation of ships, anyway, and these will be employed as medium sized anti-air warfare combatants. They fit within the accepted limits for a DDG in both size and armament, so we are calling them DDGs.
Regarding lengthening the ANZAC Class, it's not quite that simple, in order to generate the effects in the battlespace provided by an AAW combatant, you need dedicated AAW combatant. The ANZAC class were never designed as an AAW combatant, and would thus need almost total redesign to make them suitable for that role. As we found with the Adelaide class FFG, it's much harder to re-purpose a warship than you'd believe. Not to mention that we don't own the design, so can't simply modify it as we see fit anyway...
-
Regarding lengthening the ANZAC Class, it's not quite that simple, in order to generate the effects in the battlespace provided by an AAW combatant, you need dedicated AAW combatant. The ANZAC class were never designed as an AAW combatant, and would thus need almost total redesign to make them suitable for that role. As we found with the Adelaide class FFG, it's much harder to re-purpose a warship than you'd believe. Not to mention that we don't own the design, so can't simply modify it as we see fit anyway...
Fully agree with you there but that is not always how the bean-counters in Treasury and/or the political advisers at PM&C see it. So sometimes you have to get a bit "creative" when you first develop the business case that goes up to avoid wonderful projects such as Super Sea Sprite from being repeated. Therefore by calling the project Air Warfare Destroyer, we got an Aegis Frigate Destroyer.
Could you image if we had just called it Medium Sized AAW Combatant Project? We probably would have gotten an civilian freighter with an Aegis pyramid and a freight area full of VLS:
(https://nhmilitary2.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/3/0/10309166/804014322_orig.png?925)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/TDcD4AN.jpg)
Russian Pre-dreadnoughts on manouvers in the Baltic.
(https://i.imgur.com/yVld8Ap.jpg)
HMS Hood.
(https://i.imgur.com/fSFNmfn.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZSlPcd8.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/US_Navy_100710-N-4281P-799_The_ex-USS_New_Orleans_%28LPH_11%29_takes_fire_from_a_line_of_surface_combat_ships_from_four_countries_during_a_sinking_exer.jpg)
The Iwo Jima class LHP USS New Orleans being sunk at a sinkex. (these are seriously large images)
(https://i.imgur.com/BY8j8cD.jpg)
-
Could you image if we had just called it Medium Sized AAW Combatant Project? We probably would have gotten an civilian freighter with an Aegis pyramid and a freight area full of VLS:
(https://nhmilitary2.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/3/0/10309166/804014322_orig.png?925)
That's one hell of a Q-Ship...
;D
Ruger
-
It seems the Indian navy had a bit of an oops with their ballistic missile sub...https://amp.businessinsider.com/india-navy-new-3-billion-nuclear-missile-sub-damaged-by-open-hatch-2018-1?__twitter_impression=true&utm_content=bufferd69ff&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (https://amp.businessinsider.com/india-navy-new-3-billion-nuclear-missile-sub-damaged-by-open-hatch-2018-1?__twitter_impression=true&utm_content=bufferd69ff&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
-
That's what happens when you don't fully pay attention. Gaud. #P
-
That's one hell of a Q-Ship...
;D
Ruger
Talk about a arsenal ship.
-
Talk about a arsenal ship.
Isn't that vulnerable to low-flying cruise missiles or anti-ship missiles? I thought that was one of the reason they never made one. There been couple concepts.
This one was Popular Mechanic's interpretation.
(https://i.imgur.com/M89mUTo.jpg)
I like this version better, but again it was vulnerable to being struck way it was setup. I see those ships aside from the SSGNs as expensive launchers waiting to be sunk.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/arsenal_72.jpg)
-
*reads* Wait what? "to accommodate amphibious assault teams, SEAL units, or even X-wing fighters."
-
Isn't that vulnerable to low-flying cruise missiles or anti-ship missiles? I thought that was one of the reason they never made one. There been couple concepts.
This one was Popular Mechanic's interpretation.
(https://i.imgur.com/M89mUTo.jpg)
I loved that article when I read it when it first came out...
Ruger
-
Thats a lot of eggs in one basket... be a pity if I were to shoot a few torpedoes at it...
Plus its not just the missile tubes which are important, its also the fire control systems.
-
Thats a lot of eggs in one basket... be a pity if I were to shoot a few torpedoes at it...
Plus its not just the missile tubes which are important, its also the fire control systems.
Almost all of it is missiles. On a Frigate sized hull it seems. How much does having such low hull profile have an effect on radar detection. I mean hell even eyeballs would have a harder time spotting it without any normal superstructure of the kind at the long distance like other ships.
-
Almost all of it is missiles. On a Frigate sized hull it seems. How much does having such low hull profile have an effect on radar detection. I mean hell even eyeballs would have a harder time spotting it without any normal superstructure of the kind at the long distance like other ships.
The question I'd ask is how is it finding targets for its missiles.
-
I like this version better, but again it was vulnerable to being struck way it was setup. I see those ships aside from the SSGNs as expensive launchers waiting to be sunk.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/arsenal_72.jpg)
I like that version too. Having worked inside the procurement system, the civilian freighter with AEGIS, VLS and painted grey would be what we would get because it satisfactorily achieves most of the Statement Of Requirements . . .
"A camel is a stallion designed by committee."
-
The question I'd ask is how is it finding targets for its missiles.
My understanding having read years ago what the (later concept) Arsenal ships were (unlike the PM articled envisioned by Metcalf) was suppose work. Essentially they launched while having a nearby Aegis equipped vessel guiding the missiles after they were launched. Essentially it was just the launcher ship while another was the guidance ship (if they weren't per-programed like the Tomahawk missiles were during the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War).
It must work since the Ohio Class is essentially setup the same way. It fires it's load and that's that. Thinking about it, i'm surprised that Ohio Class SSGN has the word "G" in it since last time i checked, it meant the ship itself had radar/fire control controling the missiles verse just launching missiles. I guess they didn't want invent a new designation like SSMN or SSAN (Missile or Arsenal).
-
to be honest, when they decided to use the SM-3's for anti-ballistic missile defense, i kept expecting an arsenal ship type design to be announced as a mobile defensive system.
-
The shipyard building the new LPD wants to make variant that's a ballistic missile defense ship. I don't think that going work out for them...it's LPD-17 with missiles and now-defunct railgun system.
-
*reads* Wait what? "to accommodate amphibious assault teams, SEAL units, or even X-wing fighters."
(https://operationsupplydrop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/X-Wing-Takeoff.png)
-
My understanding having read years ago what the (later concept) Arsenal ships were (unlike the PM articled envisioned by Metcalf) was suppose work. Essentially they launched while having a nearby Aegis equipped vessel guiding the missiles after they were launched. Essentially it was just the launcher ship while another was the guidance ship (if they weren't per-programed like the Tomahawk missiles were during the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War).
It must work since the Ohio Class is essentially setup the same way. It fires it's load and that's that. Thinking about it, i'm surprised that Ohio Class SSGN has the word "G" in it since last time i checked, it meant the ship itself had radar/fire control controling the missiles verse just launching missiles. I guess they didn't want invent a new designation like SSMN or SSAN (Missile or Arsenal).
The Ohio SSGN's Tomahawks are GPS-guided, and GPS guidance is still guidance. The G remains valid.
An idea ahead of its time - they've only just started putting Aegis Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC) into use. But borrowing another ship's radars as detection, guidance and fire control simply makes that other ship the focus for enemy fire.
End of the day, superstructure is not just there for kicks and giggles. Its to put the radar up where it is useful.. and you need that radar.
-
The OMFG quartet are very much useful and i'd not be surprised if we saw more Ohio's get converted into it as its far more useful. Plus, a full barrage from one of the Ohio SSGN's could probably cripple a country's infrastructure. A full salvo from one could probably cripple North Korea's bridge network and airfields. Of course the problem is that they have so many Tomahawks, that replenning them isn't easy or cheap.
-
Almost all of it is missiles. On a Frigate sized hull it seems. How much does having such low hull profile have an effect on radar detection. I mean hell even eyeballs would have a harder time spotting it without any normal superstructure of the kind at the long distance like other ships.
Massive reduction, just from a couple of metres, there's a reason why RCS is measured in square metres. :-)
My understanding having read years ago what the (later concept) Arsenal ships were (unlike the PM articled envisioned by Metcalf) was suppose work. Essentially they launched while having a nearby Aegis equipped vessel guiding the missiles after they were launched. Essentially it was just the launcher ship while another was the guidance ship (if they weren't per-programed like the Tomahawk missiles were during the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War).
It must work since the Ohio Class is essentially setup the same way. It fires it's load and that's that. Thinking about it, i'm surprised that Ohio Class SSGN has the word "G" in it since last time i checked, it meant the ship itself had radar/fire control controling the missiles verse just launching missiles. I guess they didn't want invent a new designation like SSMN or SSAN (Missile or Arsenal).
Nope, the G in the nomenclature actually refers to the ship carrying independently guided missiles. The type of guidance you are referring to is semi-guided, which I'm going to assume everyone on this board is familiar with. :-)
Incidentally, this is why the Spruance class were initially DD's, and the Anzac Class were FFH's, neither of them had autonomously guided missiles.
-
Fully agree with you there but that is not always how the bean-counters in Treasury and/or the political advisers at PM&C see it. So sometimes you have to get a bit "creative" when you first develop the business case that goes up to avoid wonderful projects such as Super Sea Sprite from being repeated. Therefore by calling the project Air Warfare Destroyer, we got an Aegis Frigate Destroyer.
Could you image if we had just called it Medium Sized AAW Combatant Project? We probably would have gotten an civilian freighter with an Aegis pyramid and a freight area full of VLS:
(https://nhmilitary2.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/3/0/10309166/804014322_orig.png?925)
Lol, just my luck, I meant to respond to this post, then forgot about it. >.<
The beauty with having merchant ships is pretty well all of them are considered "large" by military standard, easy to achieve when the line is drawn somewhere between 8000 and 12000 tons, depending on what standard you are following. I concur with Ruger there, that's a Q-Ship, it's an awesome trick, but you'd really want your balls nailed to the wall before you tried it, since a superior opponent is simply going to sink all merchants they can find once it's unveiled and you'd cop all the blame. :-P
But yeah, the Navy sadly get's little to no say in what design is chosen, what they are called, or even how they are fitted out. Let's just say that the statement of requirements for the AWD project required each ship to have X number of VLS cells, and maybe the chosen design has Y. I can't really say more than that sorry. :-(
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ryfyR3l.jpg)
-
That picture of Aoba makes me think of dodgy second hand car salesmen - bit of work needed, one careful owner (all of the damage was done by the USN), low mileage (we ran out of fuel ages ago) etc
-
I'm not so hot on the older battleships from dreadnought era. Can anyone identify this shio? The name is bit blurr by way it's placed on the stern.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/39/c0/57/39c057b949e4cc6cdfda4cd8349301f7.jpg)
-
Its the Italians 1st Dreadnought the Dante Alighieri she served as the baseline design inspiration for the Russians dreadnoughts, IE 4 x triple turrets, very little superstructure, casemated secondary guns, although the Dante also had some of her secondary guns in turrets, which was unique until post war.
-
Leave it to the Italians to put a porch outside the stern and make the name of the ship nearly unreadable. #P
Lordy, i would HATED being on that porch if the seas got rough. I know it's med, but still....someone could be washed out sea in no time and no one would have known. I not aware if sound-powered phones were in use by this time design.
-
Actually a lot of Dreadnoughts had those Stern galleys, they were also quite common on pre-dreadnoughts. :)
-
Actually a lot of Dreadnoughts had those Stern galleys, they were also quite common on pre-dreadnoughts. :)
example of a tradition that's centuries old... (holdover from the Age of Sailing when Ships of Line had ornate stern gallery)
-
Actually a lot of Dreadnoughts had those Stern galleys, they were also quite common on pre-dreadnoughts. :)
example of a tradition that's centuries old... (holdover from the Age of Sailing when Ships of Line had ornate stern gallery)
I'd guess they went away when it was realised the stern galley was just going to act as a shot-trap for high explosive shells and also that being downwind of all of that coal smoke wasn't actually all that glamorous
-
Not even that really, basically it died when the Battleship finally did. The US never put stern galley's on their ships and the WW2 German vessels were far too modern to have them so they remained a hangover for older vessels.
As you can see on this picture of HMS Warspite, even with her full refit, she retained her stern galley. It was basically a walk area for the Admiral to go on, but wasn't anything like the old ships of the line, more a bulkhead door onto a small walking area.
(https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot/ships/battleships-uk/hms-warspite-1942-battleship.png)
the more modern British ships didn't have them, nor did the last of the Battleships, the Vanguard.
-
Thus passed another illustrious age of sail tradition.
Now what about rum, sodomy and the lash? ::)
-
Thus passed another illustrious age of sail tradition.
Now what about rum, sodomy and the lash? ::)
Wasn't the RN forced to retire the rum ration in 1980s or such?
-
There actually was talk of adding something like this to the two Nevada-class ships shortly after their completion- the 5-inch gun in the stern 'stinger' position was useless in all but the calmest seas, and was removed- so what to do with its casemate mounting? A few ideas were thought of, but the admiral's walkway was rejected due to the flag quarters not being anywhere near the stern on Nevada, and hardly existant at all on Oklahoma. Other ideas ended up rejected as well, and the casemate was eventually just plated in and the space used for supplies. The two ships retained the notch in their stern for the rest of their careers though, and makes for an easy way to identify them compared to the Pennsylvania-class (which never had these guns installed).
-
Thus passed another illustrious age of sail tradition.
Well, that part on the stern starboard side does look kinda suspicious...
(https://abload.de/img/nintchdbpict000335079qqquk.jpg)
especially when you consider what's the closest cutout on the ship in this one:
(https://abload.de/img/pic-queenz6qdj.jpg)
-
I never noticed the boat landing 'deck' at the waterline on the stern before. Random note.
-
I'm assuming the aft flagpole would be taken down during actual flight operations.
-
That's obviously the first arresting wire ;)
-
I'm assuming the aft flagpole would be taken down during actual flight operations.
Underway, the flag only flies from the mast.
-
That's obviously the first arresting wire ;)
Oh, right. I keep forgetting that F-35Bs are single-use only.
-
The two tower bridge on the QE looks so weird. I'm glad the Ford didn't try that approach.
-
The two tower bridge on the QE looks so weird. I'm glad the Ford didn't try that approach.
I'm sure the crew will tell the tale of two towers once the ship gone on deployment.
I'm not sure how well F-35B will. I wish they had gone to catapult, but i think costs were factor. I think they would had been better off with more selection of fixed wing aircraft at their disposal.
-
The Two Towers also allow for a little redundancy, so there is that.
I'm not sure how well F-35B will. I wish they had gone to catapult, but i think costs were factor. I think they would had been better off with more selection of fixed wing aircraft at their disposal.
The UK practically wrote the book on STOVL ops, remember? They should be fine.
The catapult issue was a mistake... a Rule 4 mistake.
The issue with going F-35C is that there are actually going to be less C variants than B, and the UK would forego the tactical option of cross-decking Marine -35Bs and vice versa.
-
I'm assuming the aft flagpole would be taken down during actual flight operations.
Both the Jack staff and Ensign staff will be struck prior to sailing, and only erected again prior to entry or coming to anchor/buoy.
As Daryk notes, the ensign only flies from the main mast while underway, and due to naval tradition, you may not fly two ensigns at once, so need to coordinate the lowering of one with the breaking of the other. :-)
-
I'm sure the crew will tell the tale of two towers once the ship gone on deployment.
I'm not sure how well F-35B will. I wish they had gone to catapult, but i think costs were factor. I think they would had been better off with more selection of fixed wing aircraft at their disposal.
I'm told the issues with CATOBAR wasn't so much the cost of alterations to the carriers or changing the F-35 order but the cost of training and maintaining carrier capable pilots and the infrastructure to support that
I think the aim is to not normally deploy with too many F-35s aboard the QE but have an ability to surge as needed but for them to spend most of their time at RAF Marham
-
I'm told the issues with CATOBAR wasn't so much the cost of alterations to the carriers or changing the F-35 order but the cost of training and maintaining carrier capable pilots and the infrastructure to support that
I think the aim is to not normally deploy with too many F-35s aboard the QE but have an ability to surge as needed but for them to spend most of their time at RAF Marham
From what I under stand they can normally hold 40 aircraft but can surge up to 60 in a wartime need.
-
From what I under stand they can normally hold 40 aircraft but can surge up to 60 in a wartime need.
Something like that
I think there may be some variation depending on how big a deck park they use and so quite what is being carried
I think I heard the normal deployment will be with only about 12 F-35Bs aboard though
-
First deployment (Gulf) expected to be 12 UK F-35Bs and 12 USMC F-35Bs, plus AEW and ASW helicopter package which ought to be another 8-10 helis
Standard air complement is 24 F-35Bs and 8-10 helis for carrier strike, 12 F-35Bs and 20-30 helis for LPH ops
However overload conditions of 48 jets and more are possible, though at the expense of sortie generation and embarked troops... 1 reason how she can stuff in that many aircraft is that part of the hangar is set up as accommodation for troops in LPH mode.
-
So she's semi-Omni, with the Primary config being more of an LPH, and the A config being a full-on CV?
Makes sense given the Royal Navy's need to do more with much less, though the main downsides I can see are reaction time(how long does it take to 'swap out pods'?) and a lack of hull redundancy(a ship in drydock costs you the use of a CV and LPH at the same time). The RN's not being given a choice in this matter though, so I guess the modularity is a smart choice.
-
Is QE II's really using actual modules like the US LCS shjps or Danish's StanFlex modules they use?
-
Is QE II's really using actual modules like the US LCS shjps or Danish's StanFlex modules they use?
I haven't heard anything about that
I thought it was just bunks for Marine Commandos to be stored in as apparently they have a longer shelf life if stored horizontally rather than vertically
-
I haven't heard anything about that
I thought it was just bunks for Marine Commandos to be stored in as apparently they have a longer shelf life if stored horizontally rather than vertically
"THIS END UP. DO NOT BEND."
-
"THIS END UP. DO NOT BEND."
Correct, if you want a bent one, you need to look in the 3 PARA mortar platoon apparently
-
I haven't heard anything about that
I thought it was just bunks for Marine Commandos to be stored in as apparently they have a longer shelf life if stored horizontally rather than vertically
I hear they're working on how to quad-pack 4 Gurkhas into the space taken up by 1 Royal Marine... but it'll only work if the MoD shell out for strike-length bunks...
And I'm out ;D
Is QE II's really using actual modules like the US LCS shjps or Danish's StanFlex modules they use?
Tis a joke mate :D
-
I hear they're working on how to quad-pack 4 Gurkhas into the space taken up by 1 Royal Marine... but it'll only work if the MoD shell out for strike-length bunks...
And I'm out ;DTis a joke mate :D
The problem is that Gurkhas are at risk of being classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction (very high TB rates) and if we aren't careful about how we pack them they can fall under the cluster bomb ban
-
The problem is that Gurkhas are at risk of being classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction (very high TB rates) and if we aren't careful about how we pack them they can fall under the cluster bomb ban
Don't you know that's the new nuclear deterrence program? The Vanguard SSBNs will be replaced by a fleet of minisubs packed to the gills with angry Gurkhas - the Dementor-class SSG(urkha)Ns :D
-
I'm told the issues with CATOBAR wasn't so much the cost of alterations to the carriers or changing the F-35 order but the cost of training and maintaining carrier capable pilots and the infrastructure to support that
I think the aim is to not normally deploy with too many F-35s aboard the QE but have an ability to surge as needed but for them to spend most of their time at RAF Marham
Lots of reasons given. The one I heard was that with turbine power they couldn't use steam catapults, and when the design was being finalized the EMALS was still in development hell. So they decided to just skip catapults all together (unfortunately, IMHO).
-
The Italian Battleship Caio Duilio, among the last of the capital ship fleet to survive world war II.
She gone through changes during her career which ended in the 1950s as training ship before she was retired.
Earlier picture of the ship where she still retained her central turret and had less anti-aircraft weaponry.
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=43917;image)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Duilio_1948.jpg)
After her refit with better weapons and equipment.
Huge differences in her appearance. I do wonder if how effect she was after refit if she had been deployed with allies, say in the Korean war for example.
EDIT: Sorry, there something wrong with the picture. It won't be enlarged if placed with my post.
-
Interesting note to these ships, the Italians were the only fleet in the interwar refit period to make major main battery modifications. While other fleets' ships saw radical modifications in terms of fire control, AA protection, aircraft carriage, etc. (and enormous changes physically, at a glance), the core elements of the ships usually went unchanged. Ships might upgrade from coal to oil (like the British 'R'-class ships), gain some speed from changes, etc., but the armor and main weaponry tended to remain the same. Putting images from WWI vs. the beginning of WWII next to each other of the Warspite, the Arizona, the Fuso, etc. show very different looking ships at a glance, but if you look at their core elements everything is unchanged- it's funnels, secondary weapons, fire control, etc. that changed.
Italy though? Yeah, no. Removing midships turrets was always a good idea for a number of reasons (no magazine in the midst of your engine areas anymore, no big hole in the middle of the ship to compromise structural integrity, etc.), but it also means a significant loss in raw broadside strength. Boring out the remaining guns a little and drastically increasing their elevation helped mitigate that problem. Was it worth it? Hard to say since they didn't really see a ton of frontline battleship-style action to test them, but certainly 'A' for effort.
-
The Italian rebuilds were expensive but it did give them some very useful and capable ships, but they didn't get the chance to prove themselves. Whilst their guns, speed and AA were all improved, they still only had a 9-inch thick main belt and if the Italians had gotten into a proper slugging match with the RN, then it wouldn't offer much protection against a 15-inch shell.
-
(https://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/cache/5037/DefenceImagery/2017/S20172677/20171026ran8247532_300.t59f6bdaa.m400.x0cd76c5c.jpg)
RSS Supreme with HMAS Adelaide off the coast of Singapore, during Indo Pacific Endeavour 2017.
-
I really wish Australia had reinforced their LHA's with F-35B capable flight deck. It must be too costly to do it.
-
It's the F35B that's too costly. RAN couldn't afford them when a squadron of six planes is going to cost about US$750+ million.
-
Behold.
(https://s17.postimg.org/nr9zkwc1b/oz3ni5q6ihc01.jpg)
-
It's the F35B that's too costly. RAN couldn't afford them when a squadron of six planes is going to cost about US$750+ million.
I'm surprised a company hasn't come up with low-cost version of the F35 that's akin to the Harrier.
The soviets did, with their Yakovlev YAK-38 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Yak-38_Forger_wings_folded.jpg)
The Soviet's the Yak-141 Freestyle which ironically was where the F-35 came from. #P
(http://images.auctionhelper.com/images/10343/Anigrand/AnigrandYak141b.jpg)
-
I'm guessing the old Harrier is pretty bad when it comes to stealth given the giant air intake... I don't know how much of that you could "build away" today?
OTOH if you want an aircraft for fleet defense stealth might be of a lesser concern. After all if you need to defend is sort of a given that the enemy's found you! :D
-
It's the F35B that's too costly. RAN couldn't afford them when a squadron of six planes is going to cost about US$750+ million.
I really wish Australia had reinforced their LHA's with F-35B capable flight deck. It must be too costly to do it.
It isn't either of those things. :-)
The Royal Australian Navy has a requirement to conduct amphibious ops in both war and peace time, these ships were acquired to satisfy that need, not to be an aircraft carrier. There's a lot of conjecture regarding the wisdom of the move, but that's not for this forum.
I'm guessing the old Harrier is pretty bad when it comes to stealth given the giant air intake... I don't know how much of that you could "build away" today?
OTOH if you want an aircraft for fleet defense stealth might be of a lesser concern. After all if you need to defend is sort of a given that the enemy's found you! :D
The Harrier has a pretty big RCS, this is true, but that wouldn't prevent that style of aircraft being developed with more advanced design, as this would be using RCS suppression technologies. The truth is that demand for VSTOL aircraft is incredibly low, even with the F-35 partners included, and that both drives price and the overall production numbers. No one buys VSTOL if they don't have a conventional carrier because they are substantially less capable than a conventional fighter, even the same model! They have shorter legs, lower payload limits, longer training cycles and higher maintenance costs. VSTOL is an out an out loser in every comparison except "launch from limited space without catapults".
-
Well, the Harrier wasn't designed for carrier duty from the outset... As is we might (unfortunately) see a return of the thinking that produced it originally.
-
The Harrier isn't a stealthy aircraft or is it a fighter. But many different planes start doing roles that they were not designed for. It took the Falklands to give the Harrier some fame.
-
I'm surprised a company hasn't come up with low-cost version of the F35 that's akin to the Harrier.
The soviets did, with their Yakovlev YAK-38 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38)
The Soviet's the Yak-141 Freestyle which ironically was where the F-35 came from. #P
The Yak-38 wasn't a cheap Harrier - it was a technology demonstrator pressed into appearing to be in active service. Minimal combat capacity, less range, and even less reliability. Plus it used lift engines, which are just Bad Ideas.
The Yak-141 was too much for Soviet metallurgy & technology. If you were going to work on something, it'd be the place to start, but again relied on lift engines.
-
Well, the Harrier wasn't designed for carrier duty from the outset... As is we might (unfortunately) see a return of the thinking that produced it originally.
Having VTOL strike bombers pop up from random patches of forest clearing to engage Soviet Russian tank columns? ;D
-
Delivering a nuclear weapon after all the airfields have been taken out actually.
-
Delivering a nuclear weapon after all the airfields have been taken out actually.
That was actually the previous concept. Cancelled in '66/'67 with Flexible Response. Subsonic VTOL was only one of multiple avenues explored, the others were ZELL (RATO) and SATS (CATOBAR). Germany was about to start fielding its first SATS squadron with 14 catapult-modified F-104G right when NATO cancelled NMBR-3.
Well, the Harrier wasn't designed for carrier duty from the outset...
Kestrel did its first carrier landing tests on Ark Royal in 1963 - two years before the RAF decided to buy it.
(https://abload.de/img/8c1ffe7e5a60b5410e5820qu46.jpg)
-
USS Missouri sailing past USS Missouri
(https://s18.postimg.org/xc6si5gq1/p6rirjk950d01.jpg)
-
That's a great shot!
-
No pressure on filling Dad's big shoes . . .
(https://deanoinamerica.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/uss-missouri-2013-pearl-harbour-7.jpg)
-
No pressure on filling Dad's big shoes . . .
(https://deanoinamerica.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/uss-missouri-2013-pearl-harbour-7.jpg)
I fear they would need the same battle honour as the Royal Marines - The Whole Globe
-
USS Missouri sailing past USS Missouri
(https://s18.postimg.org/xc6si5gq1/p6rirjk950d01.jpg)
Ahh Mighty Mo, I've never seen a more intimidating sight. She's what every little warship wants to be like when they grow up. :-)
-
Ahh Mighty Mo, I've never seen a more intimidating sight. She's what every little warship wants to be like when they grow up. :-)
That or Warspite, another battleship turned nuclear submarine lineage
-
Alright, more Mighty Mo then. I know we all love main battery shots but here's something a little different... pew pew...
(https://s18.postimg.org/58i29k4op/izj1lqsjicb01.jpg)
And some of the usual for good measure
(https://s18.postimg.org/gkunrcl3d/USSMissouri_Historic700.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/c08hc2tkp/016346d-missouri-bb-63-firing-a-broadside-16-inch-guns-firepower.jpg)
-
Littorio Class Battleships firing their guns.
(https://itsworldwar.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/littorio-and-vittorio-italian-battleships1.jpg)
-
Littorio Class Battleships firing their guns.
(https://itsworldwar.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/littorio-and-vittorio-italian-battleships1.jpg)
The thing that stands out so much on the Littorio is the aft turret sitting so high off the deck. Nice good battleships, not as good as the other powers, but still nice ships.
-
Imagine what it'll be like crewing the CVN-80 Enterprise. Two famous carriers to live up to, even if you ignore the connections to a popular SciFi franchise. :)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/078e699908680d1babec1e1dfbc2f3a1/tumblr_p3harzUXgE1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
HMS Illustrious.
-
USS America (CV-66) in her last moments above water
(http://i.imgur.com/anCMzkT.jpg)
-
USS America (CV-66) in her last moments above water
(http://i.imgur.com/anCMzkT.jpg)
My first (very badly done) model ship was CV-66 :(
I'm surprised ANY pics are in public domain, given the sensitive nature of a carrier SINKEX. This pic alone speaks a bit about what was and was not tested...
-
I thought they scuttled her, she looks in too good a condition to be part of a Sinkex, as in she's not on fire or got holes in her.
-
From Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(CV-66)#Post_decommissioning_service
After the completion of the tests, [/size]America[/color][/size] was sunk in a controlled [/color][/size]scuttling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling)[/color][/size] on 14 May 2005 at approximately 11:30[/color]
-
Oh nice. I still think they need to do a sinkex with one of the Iowas though.
-
Scuttled or sank in this particular case is somewhat academic. Though it was claimed that the Navy were surprised at the damage she took.
I thought they scuttled her, she looks in too good a condition to be part of a Sinkex, as in she's not on fire or got holes in her.
Thats what I thought...
-
Oh nice. I still think they need to do a sinkex with one of the Iowas though.
Bite your tongue! >:(
Though as much as it pains me to think of it, if they can't get her into a permanent drydock, a sinkex might be a better fate for Texas than rusting away in a swamp...
-
Compared to scrapping, IMHO a Sinkex is one last worthy service a capital ship can perform for its country.
for example, I would have thought the USN would be interested to see what a supersonic SSM would do to a carrier. Or a ballistic missile.
-
A shame such a test would be classified "Shoot yourself before reading", as dropping a ballistic missile into a carrier would make for one HELL of a YouTube video.
-
if we had non-nuclear ballistic missiles, i'm sure someone would have at least proposed that. but we already know what nukes can do to ships, and i doubt that china would be willing to loan us one of their new anti-ship missiles for such a thing. (we really don't have anything comparable)
-
There’s also a problem with US carriers being nuclear sinking them as targets not an option sending all that waste into the drink. It would be political suicide for anyone who authorised it
-
It's already been done. US nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll. US sunk a arge number of ships during the tests.
-
actually before they sink they they strip out anything that could contaminate the ocean. they are literally just metal shells by that point. the reason we haven't seen a scuttled nuclear ship yet is because the majority of them are still in service, and those that have been retired were older designs with reactors not designed to be removed*, which means the reactors would have to be either dismantled in place (highly unsafe for the work crews) or half the ship would have to be removed to allow them to be removed safely, which would result in a ship no longer sea worthy enough to make the trip to he scuttling site.
* a fact that proved extremely difficult when it came time to refuel them.. most of the early nuclear ships were never intended to serve beyond the time of the first refueling. refueling typically involves much of the same steps that removing the reactor would. since that is basically what you are doing, to avoid contamination concerns.
and as far as battleships go, there is the USS Massachusetts (BB-2) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Massachusetts_(BB-2)), sunk in the 50's as a gunnery target, and which has since been declared a protected reef.
carrier wise there is the USS Oriskany (CV-34) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Oriskany_(CV-34)) which was sunk in 2006 to create an artificial reef.
honestly it would be easier to just give links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_reef#Examples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_ships_for_wreck_diving_sites#List_of_ships_sunk_for_wreck_diving
-
One wonders just how many Tomahawks an Iowa can take, with the armor belt and sheer size. Granted, no way to test its damage control with live rounds, but still...
-
I'm no expert, but i don't think superstructure where much of the active command spaces are would last long.
Iowas have thinner armor in the super structure.
A friend mine once told me when i was in the service, that the USS Missouri near end of it's career was shot at by a CIWS on a Perry Class Frigate. I believe it was Curtis. He told me the chaff launcher fired on the Missouri and triggered the Phalanx to shoot at the shaft launcher. The bullets were uranium tip i believe so it went though. Thankfully not a lot bullets were fired.
I was told later, when the ship was in Long Beach CA when the Curtis was arriving from deployment (i think in 91-92) as she cruised into harbor, the Missouri's 16 turret trained it's guns to the ship as it sailed by to dock.
-
if we had non-nuclear ballistic missiles, i'm sure someone would have at least proposed that. but we already know what nukes can do to ships, and i doubt that china would be willing to loan us one of their new anti-ship missiles for such a thing. (we really don't have anything comparable)
I don't know, can a DF-21 hit be emulated somehow?
At the very least, no one wanted to know what would happen if a couple of P-800s hit a carrier? Kh-31s?
There’s also a problem with US carriers being nuclear sinking them as targets not an option sending all that waste into the drink. It would be political suicide for anyone who authorised it
CV-66 was the 3rd last of the conventional carriers remaining. Constellation was scrapped, Kitty Hawk and Kennedy remain. If Kennedy successfully gets turned into a museum ship, Kitty Hawk is the only CV left that might be tested.
-
A friend mine once told me when i was in the service, that the USS Missouri near end of it's career was shot at by a CIWS on a Perry Class Frigate. I believe it was Curtis. He told me the chaff launcher fired on the Missouri and triggered the Phalanx to shoot at the shaft launcher. The bullets were uranium tip i believe so it went though. Thankfully not a lot bullets were fired.
I was told later, when the ship was in Long Beach CA when the Curtis was arriving from deployment (i think in 91-92) as she cruised into harbor, the Missouri's 16 turret trained it's guns to the ship as it sailed by to dock.
Never Forget, never forgive.
Also, as a rule, the superstructure on battleships isn't armored. Generally, only the conning tower is armored in any quality.
-
Never Forget, never forgive.
Also, as a rule, the superstructure on battleships isn't armored. Generally, only the conning tower is armored in any quality.
The US Navy used STS in all the superstructure. One layer can't withstand 152mm ammo but it will destroy the round and the second plate will stop it. It happened in the USS Massachusets, she got hit in Casablanca by a 6-inch gun in the superstructure. The 20mm with uranium would not be enough, IMHO.
-
Generally, only the conning tower is armored in any quality.
And it's the most heavily armored part of the ship, usually dubbed "The Citadel".
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/USSMissouri-BB63-BattleBridge.JPG)
-
I believe the Royal Navy got rid of the conning towers as they realised the commanders didn't use them in battle
A bit of a moot point as things then shifted to having combat information centres to control the action
-
The US Navy used STS in all the superstructure. One layer can't withstand 152mm ammo but it will destroy the round and the second plate will stop it. It happened in the USS Massachusets, she got hit in Casablanca by a 6-inch gun in the superstructure. The 20mm with uranium would not be enough, IMHO.
WTH would you use DU in CIWS ammunition? They are firing in a stream at an unarmoured target, we use tungsten in ours, and that's more than good enough.
-
WTH would you use DU in CIWS ammunition? They are firing in a stream at an unarmoured target, we use tungsten in ours, and that's more than good enough.
Ours go to 11.
-
WTH would you use DU in CIWS ammunition?
The partial intention behind using DU is its incendiary effect, although for the US Military it's partially because with them literally all non-HE projectiles at the time used DU. Offhand the .50cal sabotted subcaliber projectile of Mk149 is also used in some other ammunition (possibly in PGU-20 for 25x137, used primarily by the USMC but at the time also by the USN).
The USN began replacing Mk149-2 (DU) ammunition for Phalanx with Mk149-4 (tungsten) in 1988.
-
Any word on the future of US Navy CIWS? SeaRAM, 57mm, Laser?
-
Any word on the future of US Navy CIWS? SeaRAM, 57mm, Laser?
It's been slow goings with US Navy development.
Their mounting the laser on a newer LPD and seeing how well it does.
Given their budget crisis at the moment, everything stuck in limbo.
-
Speaking of future past technology.
The hybrid boiler-electronic transmitted powered aircraft carrier of the past, USS Langley (CV-1) in 1927. Formerly and futurely, the USS Jupiter.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/USS_Langley_%28CV-1%29_underway_in_June_1927_%28520809%29.jpg)
Hybrids before they were cool.
Side comparison of the ship with Lexington Class Aircraft Carriers in 1929 at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/USS_Langley_%28CV-1%29%2C_USS_Lexington_%28CV-2%29_and_USS_Saratoga_%28CV-3%29_at_the_Puget_Sound_Naval_Shipyard%2C_in_1929_%28NNAM.1996.488.001.004%29.jpg)
-
Speaking of carrier conversions.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/504b78130bd115bb3d22d7ad18c10d52/tumblr_p3l4fzvcoI1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
HMS Glorious in the Med.
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/28479935cbb25521b251d7ab9c2e42e3/tumblr_p3l4j7d6hb1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
A and B turrets of County class cruiser HMS Cornwall (8-inch or 203mm if you live in the colonies).
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/7218841412b77736de99ad54311e6de6/tumblr_p3jh11txbV1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The Ironclad battleship HMS Edingburgh, her and her sister the Colossus were the last British ships to be built with muzzle loading guns and were based upon the earlier HMS Inflexible a ship that still has the record for the thickest armour protection afloat. The armour was a sandwich like layout of 12-inches of iron, backed by 11-inches of teak, which was backed by another 12-iches of iron which was backed by another 6-inches of teak.
The Inflexible also carried a quartet of 16.25-inch guns with each gun weighing eighty tons. These huge guns were also breech loaders and examples of them survive to this day. To defend the port of Dover, the RN put a turret identical to that of the Inflexible at the end of the mole to defend the port against an attacker, with it being able to fire both solid and canister shot.
This turret survives to this day, but in rather poor condition.
(https://doveruk.s3.amazonaws.com/user-files/15870-admiralty-turret-010.jpg)
Thats the inside of the turret and this gentleman is stood between the two guns.
(http://www.dover-kent.co.uk/index_htm_files/1833.jpg)
Thats what the turret and its small fort would have looked like in its heyday. Whilst it had a rate of fire measured in round per 10-minutes (with a good crew) it could have caused massive damage to anything it hit with its 764 kg round.
-
TIL the Typhoon-class submarine had a sauna, bath (pool is rather an exaggeration), sub-themed slot machines, and a rec room that would have been filled with planter boxes of plants, flowers etc.
source: http://russianambience.com/inside-giant-russian-typhoon-class-submarine-tk-17-arkhangelsk/
(https://s9.postimg.org/abwgdlwi7/inside-giant-russian-typhoon-class-submarine-tk-17-arkhangelsk-1.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/z560e9n8f/inside-giant-russian-typhoon-class-submarine-tk-17-arkhangelsk-1.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/ttr3tk8vj/inside-giant-russian-typhoon-class-submarine-tk-17-arkhangelsk-1.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/8k3hiq0an/inside-giant-russian-typhoon-class-submarine-tk-17-arkhangelsk-1.jpg)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/72ddb40b4aa60e7c2dccdc2684d375c9/tumblr_p3kwt81oGr1vaiv1co1_1280.jpg)
USS New York or USS Texas
-
Texas unless my eyes are deceiving me. I see what look to be 40mm Bofors mounts on there and I don't think the New York ever received such a refit.
-
Such a great photo of the New York/Texas.
-
USS Texas - 35 is on either side of the bow at the bottom of the picture.
-
Speaking of future past technology.
The hybrid boiler-electronic transmitted powered aircraft carrier of the past, USS Langley (CV-1) in 1927. Formerly and futurely, the USS Jupiter.
Hybrids before they were cool.
Technically not hybrids - there's only one power source (steam turbines+generators). It's "just" electric transmission. You know, that "electric ship" the navies today are trying to build... ;)
A diesel-electric submarine is a hybrid, thought (two power sources, battery and ICE).
-
HMS Furious in her various forms, from cruiser to aircraft carrier.
-
Aerial view of HMS Furious as completed in 1918 with separate fore and aft flight decks
-
Came across this.... very intriguing.
https://imgur.com/gallery/ZUmGZ
-
If you do a Google search for "still on patrol," the first result is Wikipedia's "List of lost United States submarines."
-
The Navy remembers. Simple enough. And those sailors that go out every time know that they will be remembered too, should they join the ranks of those still on patrol. Not forgotten, not lost to the darkness of history, but still cherished and known to the future.
Though, I admit I rather liked that last story idea from the imgur thread.
-
i'm reminded of Heinlein's Space Cadet, where the heroes of the Patrol are always present at roll call. "A man is not dead while his name is still spoken", as terry pratchett wrote in Going Postal.
-
Found this, its a veritable wall of pictures of ships
https://imgur.com/gallery/zxLEb
-
Found this, its a veritable wall of pictures of ships
https://imgur.com/gallery/zxLEb
Some really awesome pictures
-
#7 whooo they're bawdy!
-
#7 whooo they're bawdy!
Er... Com' full about! Rammin' Speed! Layway that order! Fir' a bro'dside Mr. Hobbes! Tha'r she blows, m'ties like a cheap boozen in tha'r wind me boyo's... f'llin' yer sail pantaloons with pride!
Name this sub... I like the smaller boat acting as Tug for her...
(https://padresteve.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/u1023.jpg)
TT
-
(http://www.dmitryshulgin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/JS-Izumo-DDH-183.jpg)
JS Izumo underway.
-
Er... Com' full about! Rammin' Speed! Layway that order! Fir' a bro'dside Mr. Hobbes! Tha'r she blows, m'ties like a cheap boozen in tha'r wind me boyo's... f'llin' yer sail pantaloons with pride!
Name this sub... I like the smaller boat acting as Tug for her...
(https://padresteve.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/u1023.jpg)
TT
Could be the U-123. Hard to be sure from that perspective.
-
What class is she if you can tell?
TT
-
Type VII-C. the U-1023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-1023
-
Cool thanks...
TT
-
(http://www.dmitryshulgin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/JS-Izumo-DDH-183.jpg)
JS Izumo underway.
That is certainly a beautiful ship, but it makes me just a little sad to see it with no aircraft at all on the deck. I think I recall reading that it's standard compliment (not during wartime) was only something like 4 helos, so it isn't likely to be a full house up there very often but still...it just looks sort of lonely with nothing ready to fly up top.
-
That is certainly a beautiful ship, but it makes me just a little sad to see it with no aircraft at all on the deck. I think I recall reading that it's standard compliment (not during wartime) was only something like 4 helos, so it isn't likely to be a full house up there very often but still...it just looks sort of lonely with nothing ready to fly up top.
Reminiscent of 1945?
I can understand what the Japanese are doing with these ships but they do seem awfully big for the role
-
In peacetime, sure. I imagine they built it to carry the biggest wartime lad possible, given that in a war its job is to be a 100-mile radius of "we are 100% sure there are no living subs here".
Japan has seen firsthand what enemy subs can do to an island nation, and it's fairly obvious they are determined that it will never happen to them again.
-
Room for marines too don't forget. And cross decking Ospreys. Nearly every US ally keeps things like that in mind these days.
-
To be fair it isn't JUST the Izumo that gives me that feeling. When I see pictures of the Brits new carrier or the new US Ford-class chugging along with bare decks, I get that same sort of sad feeling. It just makes the ships seems so...lonely. These ships just don't seem right without SOMETHING on the deck waiting to take flight!
And yes, I know I'm strange.
-
Not strange. When they have aircraft on deck it means that they are "operational", they can project air power, not just be a target.
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/Melbourne%20and%20Brisbane.JPG)
-
Empty decks, is it? Well then...
(https://s9.postimg.org/m31zt3zu7/DVh_D_-_Wk_AAl_HLp.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/vau89sz6n/DVhe_FKVX0_AEXy_EV.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/c5qz02fdr/DVk2ls_ZVAAU5_Zb.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/tvsnl40of/DVk58c_RVo_AIVZ9_V.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/qc6pvaatb/DVl_PTa_W0_AAty_OH.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/i6onx4ua7/DVSMob_QX0_AYqd7_C.jpg)
-
I'm surprised they got the Chinook topside. Too big a helo for carrier duty if you ask me. That looks like the rear rotors just barely cleared the edge of the on when it's on the elevator.
-
I'm surprised they got the Chinook topside. Too big a helo for carrier duty if you ask me. That looks like the rear rotors just barely cleared the edge of the on when it's on the elevator.
The Chinook is the mainstay heavy lift helicopter of the British forces and I think the ship was designed specifically to be able to fit them.
The other thing about clear decks is that I would expect to see that more as the F-35's skin is unlikely to appreciate the salt and water of being above deck too much and unless you are at maximum war load you would probably not have too much out on a deck park, especially in the North Sea, Atlantic etc - this is one of the considerations that led to the differences in WW2 carriers between the RN and USN.
-
The Chinook is the mainstay heavy lift helicopter of the British forces and I think the ship was designed specifically to be able to fit them.
The other thing about clear decks is that I would expect to see that more as the F-35's skin is unlikely to appreciate the salt and water of being above deck too much and unless you are at maximum war load you would probably not have too much out on a deck park, especially in the North Sea, Atlantic etc - this is one of the considerations that led to the differences in WW2 carriers between the RN and USN.
Yes. Also, some of the relevant lessons from the Falklands War which were taken into consideration:
1) overload conditions acutely hamper operations. QE is designed to use its space more effectively to generate more sorties.
2) somewhat related to 1, working on aircraft below decks is both more efficient and effective than on deck - especially in adverse weather.
3) parking aircraft on deck leads to mishaps. At least 1 Harrier was lost when it literally fell overboard because of violent ship manoeuvres either while evading missile attack or in stormy weather. Out of a peak force of about 35 Harriers and an embarked force of about 20 on HMS Hermes... that's not insignificant.
-
Yes. Also, some of the relevant lessons from the Falklands War which were taken into consideration:
1) overload conditions acutely hamper operations. QE is designed to use its space more effectively to generate more sorties.
2) somewhat related to 1, working on aircraft below decks is both more efficient and effective than on deck - especially in adverse weather.
3) parking aircraft on deck leads to mishaps. At least 1 Harrier was lost when it literally fell overboard because of violent ship manoeuvres either while evading missile attack or in stormy weather. Out of a peak force of about 35 Harriers and an embarked force of about 20 on HMS Hermes... that's not insignificant.
Does 3) count as a Harrier kill by an Exocet?
I think it counts as a kill if a plane flies into a mountain evading your missile
-
I'm surprised they got the Chinook topside. Too big a helo for carrier duty if you ask me. That looks like the rear rotors just barely cleared the edge of the on when it's on the elevator.
I think they might have been showing off that they could do it without folding the rotors. [grin]
I believe that the various helos were there to test the carrier, and were all kitted out with heavy payloads of sensors and diagnostic gear.
-
Pretty neat seeing some aircraft on the QE.
-
Here's a picture of a CH-53E operating off of the IWO JIMA.
-
German CH-53GS landing on Dutch LPD Karel Doorman:
(https://abload.de/img/ch53gs-landingvlpdx.jpg)
And in the hangar next to a German Sea King:
(https://abload.de/img/klq9r.jpg)
From training in July last year. Was apparently also done to train near-simultaneous operations (landings and takeoffs) on multiple helo spots on the aviation deck.
-
**** yeah, Sea King!
(someone was gonna say it)
As far as the Chinooks, yeah, that's a huge squeaker to get it on that elevator. Still, an inch clearance is an inch.
3) parking aircraft on deck leads to mishaps. At least 1 Harrier was lost when it literally fell overboard because of violent ship manoeuvres either while evading missile attack or in stormy weather. Out of a peak force of about 35 Harriers and an embarked force of about 20 on HMS Hermes... that's not insignificant.
One would think a properly parked aircraft would be chained/secured/whatevered down, even if it's out of the way on the main deck, for just that reason. Maybe it was still being locked down after movement, or something?
-
**** yeah, Sea King!
(someone was gonna say it)
If not you then me. There's something about that old bird even more than the Super Stallions... pops out even more in rescue yellow!
(https://s10.postimg.org/nwcgweupl/image.jpg)
As far as the Chinooks, yeah, that's a huge squeaker to get it on that elevator. Still, an inch clearance is an inch.
One would think a properly parked aircraft would be chained/secured/whatevered down, even if it's out of the way on the main deck, for just that reason. Maybe it was still being locked down after movement, or something?
"That was no accident - it was by design!"
Not sure. It was either violent sea states or counter-Exocet manoeuvreing, possibly combined with overcrowding on deck...
-
Maybe it was still being locked down after movement, or something?
Pilot was onboard and ejected before it hit the water, so it was probably about to take off or just landing.
There was a second similar incident on HMS Hermes in which the pilot on the aircraft by starting his engines vectored the nozzles just right to stop the aircraft after it began sliding. And the same thing - having to stop the slide by firing the nozzles - happened onboard Foch with a Harrier demonstrator a decade earlier in the Bay of Biscay in heavy weather.
The incidents are mentioned in this book (https://books.google.de/books?id=qTLAAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA422&lpg=PA422&dq=harrier+falklands+fell+overboard&source=bl&ots=RWOnkVkLm6&sig=2jHAL_TvpEuU32fU4a6UTneE2z8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZp_GC9ZrZAhWhCsAKHWJnD40Q6AEITDAI#v=onepage&q=overboard&f=false).
-
I grew up next to the Sikorsky plant in Stratford, CT. Whenever an SH-3 needed maintenance, they'd send it up there. That included a dozen or so in a handsome white-over-hunter green scheme...
-
I grew up next to the Sikorsky plant in Stratford, CT. Whenever an SH-3 needed maintenance, they'd send it up there. That included a dozen or so in a handsome white-over-hunter green scheme...
Thia?
(https://s10.postimg.org/6querss15/a-westland-sea-king-commando-helicopter-of-the-royal-navy-bct9dg.jpg)
-
Our ones were never so bright.
(https://www.helis.com/h/seaking_ran_07.jpg)
And only got duller and duller as they got towards the end of their career.
(http://www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/4/3/1/0140134.jpg)
(https://cdn.jetphotos.com/400/2/54582_1074504812.jpg)
But every so often they got a bit of a spruce up.
(http://www.goodall.com.au/photographs/aust-military-80-2/SeaKing%20N16-125%20code-20-FRE-9.87-ex-HMAS-Tobruk-KKK.jpg)
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Sea-King-N16-125/AMOF_N16_125_114.jpg)
(http://www.adf-serials.com/gallery/albums/Sea-King-N16-114/DC_N16_114.jpg)
-
Thia?
(https://s10.postimg.org/6querss15/a-westland-sea-king-commando-helicopter-of-the-royal-navy-bct9dg.jpg)
*blinks* Joking?
-
Thia?
(https://s10.postimg.org/6querss15/a-westland-sea-king-commando-helicopter-of-the-royal-navy-bct9dg.jpg)
Presidential transports
-
It says:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tKVPSxLMoYs/hqdefault.jpg)
"Git in mah Belly!!!"
-
It says:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tKVPSxLMoYs/hqdefault.jpg)
"Git in mah Belly!!!"
OM NOM NOM NOM.
-
and now for something a bit more ship-shaped
well, ish
and I can't help but think that an LCT Rocket is a bit like a large unit of jump infantry charging forwards... and after a ripple barrage like that I feel sorry for the poor artillery troops (or would it be sailors? or marines?) who had to reload the damn things!
-
LCT(R) were probably some of the ugliest ships out there in naval service.
The LSM(R)-401 class did look pretty sleek for doing the same thing though.
-
Be happier when F-35Bs start flying off the ship. I'll feel better it's more full on carrier then a Helio Carrier.
-
Be happier when F-35Bs start flying off the ship. I'll feel better it's more full on carrier then a Helio Carrier.
...a what now?
(http://www.worldofmunchkin.com/cards/hellocarrier/img/cover_lg.jpg)
-
Helio-carrier aka Helicopter Carrier. :P
Like HMS Ocean.
(http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/ocean3.jpg)
-
So you're talking about a helicopter carrier.
Heliocarrier isn't a thing in the English language, unless we're talking about Greek mythology. Or was Helios one of those Roman renames?
-
So you're talking about a helicopter carrier.
Heliocarrier isn't a thing in the English language, unless we're talking about Greek mythology. Or was Helios one of those Roman renames?
Actually, I think every CVN is a Helios carrier in spirit :P
-
Do the CVN carry "buckets of instant sunshine"?
-
Charles de Gaulle might, on occasion.
-
Do the CVN carry "buckets of instant sunshine"?
they used to during the cold war.
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/02/nuclear-weapons-at-sea/
they stopped in the early 90's.
(https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/afloat_CV66_DesertStorm1991.jpg)
"B61 and B57 nuclear weapons are displayed on board the USS America (CV-66) during its deployment to Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The nuclear division was also onboard in 1992 but gone in 1993."
-
Cheers and thanks.
I knew in the cold war past that they did but I have not kept up on whether it is part of the current arsenal available to the CVNs.
-
Cheers and thanks.
I knew in the cold war past that they did but I have not kept up on whether it is part of the current arsenal available to the CVNs.
They won't tell you, no matter what. :-) All we know is that they can carry.
Speaking of carriers, here's the Vung Tau Ferry, HMAS Sydney.
-
They won't tell you, no matter what. :-) All we know is that they can carry.
Speaking of carriers, here's the Vung Tau Ferry, HMAS Sydney.
Wow, thats rough if their launching those trucks by catapult. #P
-
Wow, thats rough if their launching those trucks by catapult. #P
lol, she was built in 1944, no such thing as catapults then. :-)
I'd pay money to see them launching a truck from one though.
-
Like this https://youtu.be/J48cfZxCOoQ (https://youtu.be/J48cfZxCOoQ)
or
like this https://youtu.be/3zzdzZxgbsE (https://youtu.be/3zzdzZxgbsE)
:D
-
lol, she was built in 1944, no such thing as catapults then. :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult
There were experiments about using catapults in the hangar deck of USN Carriers. Graf Zeppelin was intended to have two as the main method of launching her air wing.
-
Going back as far as the Yorktown-class (not sure about the Lexingtons), the catapult has been available for carriers. Trick is, they weren't really needed then the way they are now. Planes back then were of course much, MUCH lighter and only needed a good bit of headwind- such as the type a carrier creates just by moving. Turn into the wind to keep the airflow in one direction, and those planes- even with a full bomb load- would hop right into the air. Prior to WWII, carriers would sometimes not even have them aboard at all- I'm not entirely sure a couple of the pre-war ships like Ranger ever had them at all. (There's a fun story from the early months of WWII of flight deck crewman on an RN flat-top having to find extra weights to hold down Swordfish readying for takeoff- even loaded up, with the wings unfolded they were trying to just pop up into the air without traveling an inch down the flight deck!)
I can't find an image of either Lexington-class ship showing catapults, but this late-war shot of Enterprise at least shows off her pair- which even in 1945 were only used in the event that there wasn't enough wind for a standard launch (rare), or more usually if there was damage to the flight deck keeping from a normal full-deck takeoff run. Within a few years, her Essex-class replacements were totally reliant on them for operations.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/thekristoffersuniverseinwar/images/9/9a/Yorktown_class_aircraft_carrier.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20111213205402)
As for catapult technology at sea... well, that never seems to have bothered the battleship fleet. The planes perched on fantails and aft turrets weren't decoration.
-
(not sure about the Lexingtons)
Lexington and Saratoga had a single catapult originally intended for seaplane launches. Both had their catapults removed in the mid-30s, after less than a dozen launches using the catapult within the previous ten years.
CV-1 Langley also had an aircraft catapult; previous seaplane tenders (Wright and Jason) didn't have one, but catapults were used since the mid'10s on cruisers.
Edit: A bit hard to see, but here's Saratoga's catapult to starboard on the flight deck. In the Panama Canal in 1928.
(https://abload.de/img/020313eoq73.jpg)
-
Random question. What did the navy do with Saratoga's 8 inch twin barrel gun turrets? They cut them up and scrapped them or used them for coastal protection?
Saratoga in Hawaii (real color picture, not colorized)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/USS_Saratoga_%28CV-3%29_at_Pearl_Harbor_1945.jpg)
-
Random question. What did the navy do with Saratoga's 8 inch twin barrel gun turrets? They cut them up and scrapped them or used them for coastal protection?
Coast Defense. Scrapped by 1948.
-
Like this https://youtu.be/J48cfZxCOoQ (https://youtu.be/J48cfZxCOoQ)
or
like this https://youtu.be/3zzdzZxgbsE (https://youtu.be/3zzdzZxgbsE)
:D
Needs more cars...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/US_Navy_120109-N-EE987-022_The_aircraft_carrier_USS_Ronald_Reagan_%28CVN_76%29_transports_Sailors%27_vehicles_while_transiting_the_Pacific_coast_to_Naval.jpg)
-
The RN's carriers from the '30s were built with hydraulic catapults. Ark Royal had two, and the Illustrious-class had one
-
Do the CVN carry "buckets of instant sunshine"?
That too, although I was referring to the reactors although they don't give off sunshine, per se
-
1944, Prinz Eugen collides with the light cruiser Leipzig while returning home.
-
That too, although I was referring to the reactors although they don't give off sunshine, per se
Well Helios is the Greek God of the Sun . . . 8)
-
Never have seen anything solid on the fate of CV-3's guns, but they were never re-used Vanguard-style on something else. The only other American ships to carry a dual 8-inch mount were the Pensacola-class CAs (two twins and two triples), but it was a different design of mount anyway. I suppose the 'scrapped' idea is likely- by the time they were removed the upcoming ships using that cailber were going to be the Baltimores, and those monsters sure didn't need the old guns.
1944, Prinz Eugen collides with the light cruiser Leipzig while returning home.
It's honestly a wonder this didn't result in two halves of Leipzig. That's a nasty hit, and it wasn't at ultra-low speeds. With the Eugen being a very big boat (one of the largest CAs ever built, in fact), that's a lot of momentum and mass being put into a very knife-edge bow, right into the center of a much smaller ship. As it was, Leipzig was never really a line combat vessel after that, used only in training roles until near the wars' end- one suspects she never really was the same afterwards, like a car that's had major frame damage.
Of note, it says a lot about the Hipper-class that other than the stern-collapse problems that plagued every German heavy design of this era, they were tough as hell elsewhere- there's hardly any damage to be found in photos of the Eugen, and she was back on duty in a very short time.
-
Going back as far as the Yorktown-class (not sure about the Lexingtons), the catapult has been available for carriers. Trick is, they weren't really needed then the way they are now. Planes back then were of course much, MUCH lighter and only needed a good bit of headwind- such as the type a carrier creates just by moving. Turn into the wind to keep the airflow in one direction, and those planes- even with a full bomb load- would hop right into the air. Prior to WWII, carriers would sometimes not even have them aboard at all- I'm not entirely sure a couple of the pre-war ships like Ranger ever had them at all. (There's a fun story from the early months of WWII of flight deck crewman on an RN flat-top having to find extra weights to hold down Swordfish readying for takeoff- even loaded up, with the wings unfolded they were trying to just pop up into the air without traveling an inch down the flight deck!)
I can't find an image of either Lexington-class ship showing catapults, but this late-war shot of Enterprise at least shows off her pair- which even in 1945 were only used in the event that there wasn't enough wind for a standard launch (rare), or more usually if there was damage to the flight deck keeping from a normal full-deck takeoff run. Within a few years, her Essex-class replacements were totally reliant on them for operations.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/thekristoffersuniverseinwar/images/9/9a/Yorktown_class_aircraft_carrier.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20111213205402)
As for catapult technology at sea... well, that never seems to have bothered the battleship fleet. The planes perched on fantails and aft turrets weren't decoration.
I stand corrected :-)
Sydney and Melbourne were CVE's initially, even though we bought A-4s to run off their decks, Sydney never landed them. Instead she was re-designated a fast troop transport, and took a heap of vehicles, soldiers and supplies from Sydney to Vung Tau.
-
Like this https://youtu.be/J48cfZxCOoQ (https://youtu.be/J48cfZxCOoQ)
or
like this https://youtu.be/3zzdzZxgbsE (https://youtu.be/3zzdzZxgbsE)
:D
or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4x0Dz00csA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4x0Dz00csA)
-
Some people have some cool jobs.
Launching test stuff off a carrier. How cool.
-
or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4x0Dz00csA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4x0Dz00csA)
Lol.
I remember being on Adelaide's flight deck and looking around. All I wanted was a go-cart, to go wheeling around on the deck and then to shoot it off the ski ramp. Request denied, obviously. :-)
-
One thing you can say about the South Koreans, they have nice balance and modern Navy. Even their frigates are nice and well balanced.
This is the Daegu-Class Frigate, ROKS Daegu. She the lead of their their Navy's second batch of FFGs they been producing over the last 5 years. This one has larger, with a 16-tubed VLS launcher and she bit longer than the Incheon-class. What interesting she has can be loaded with missiles she can carry, SSM-700K Haeseong cruise missile. It can be used for both anti-ship work and as tactical land attack missile. The missile variant has range of 120 miles, which self-guided and has obstacle avoidance system. This was made as light weight missile with same performance as the Harpoon Block 1C anti-ship missile. She has also a singlar 5-inch gun on the bow.
She pretty balance ship, i wish shipwright with the US had paid attention to the South korean's development since their ships seem to be better balanced given how they keep changing their minds what a Frigate / Small Combatant should be like!
(http://www.marinelog.com/media/k2/items/cache/2cbb68fd656974d22a56610c0af4d204_XL.jpg)
-
Consider at least endurance, sensor fits and damage control capabilities before comparing... a lot of smaller navies' corvettes or frigates are basically missile boats in this regard.
-
One nations ship is a FFG but it might be a DDG even up to a CG.
-
One thing you can say about the South Koreans, they have nice balance and modern Navy. Even their frigates are nice and well balanced.
This is the Daegu-Class Frigate, ROKS Daegu. She the lead of their their Navy's second batch of FFGs they been producing over the last 5 years. This one has larger, with a 16-tubed VLS launcher and she bit longer than the Incheon-class. What interesting she has can be loaded with missiles she can carry, SSM-700K Haeseong cruise missile. It can be used for both anti-ship work and as tactical land attack missile. The missile variant has range of 120 miles, which self-guided and has obstacle avoidance system. This was made as light weight missile with same performance as the Harpoon Block 1C anti-ship missile. She has also a singlar 5-inch gun on the bow.
She pretty balance ship, i wish shipwright with the US had paid attention to the South korean's development since their ships seem to be better balanced given how they keep changing their minds what a Frigate / Small Combatant should be like!
Going to be honest, I can't really understand what you are saying. Are you talking about the weapons fit out being a balanced mix of long and short range? Are you talking about balance between AAW and ASuW roles? An FFG is not a small combatant, btw, they are considered a large ship, albeit they generally tend to be light on armament and more suited to the ASW/ASuW domains, vs DDG's which really seem to have taken over the AAW domain. The irony is delicious in that aspect.
That class is a pretty standard FFG these days, and given the superstructure, she's top heavy and will roll like a mongrel! Sea keeping would suck on that girl!
-
Going to be honest, I can't really understand what you are saying. Are you talking about the weapons fit out being a balanced mix of long and short range? Are you talking about balance between AAW and ASuW roles? An FFG is not a small combatant, btw, they are considered a large ship, albeit they generally tend to be light on armament and more suited to the ASW/ASuW domains, vs DDG's which really seem to have taken over the AAW domain. The irony is delicious in that aspect.
That class is a pretty standard FFG these days, and given the superstructure, she's top heavy and will roll like a mongrel! Sea keeping would suck on that girl!
Sorry. i tend to ramble. Essentially the ship seems to be balanced. It is a small combatant since it same weight class as the LCS. US Navy classifies ships when they fund them now as large combatants and small ones. Aircraft Carriers don't count this category. The ship has fair and equal mix of weapons, with good ranges and fire power. The ship is escort with tools to do the job. The old Oliver Perry Class ships i served on, where more focus on Anti-Air and Submarines. Given the back and forth how US Navy can't decide what they want in smaller ship than the DDG-51s, Daegu-class mirrors what older salts in charge want from all the news reports they've published. A Warship that can do more traditional escort missions, while not trying to be a Burke.
That's my opinion. The future FFX that US Navy is shaping up to make unfortunately seems to be colored with politics verse what the service think it needs. I still have issues that the FFX suppose to have a 57mm cannon as it's main gun, which i don't think has enough hit power to damage a ship it's size. Which most have 76mm rapid-fire cannon or larger. Usually packing some long range anti-ship missiles. Use of Hellfire missiles seem to be short range and i suspect expensive to use to kill small ships coming.
-
The 57mm apparently gives better CIWS options than the Phalanx 20mm. So there is that at least.
The Hellfires are needed for anti-swarm-tactics, based on exercises where the single 57mm and side guns failed. Though its true they are a stopgap as a better OTH antiswarm antiship missile was supposed to be developed.
The FFXs are still going to be armed with Harpoons - perhaps LRASM in future - and I think RAM. Other than the lack of Standard SM1, they will be better armed than the Perrys. Their missile defence at least will be much better.
These ships aren't really meant to fight other ships. But neither were the Perrys.
-
The Hellfire don't have the range needed for naval fights. 5 miles I think. Going to need something with a little bit more.
-
The Hellfire don't have the range needed for naval fights. 5 miles I think. Going to need something with a little bit more.
Can small boats be spotted further than 5 miles from the ship's sensors?
-
Sorry. i tend to ramble. Essentially the ship seems to be balanced. It is a small combatant since it same weight class as the LCS. US Navy classifies ships when they fund them now as large combatants and small ones. Aircraft Carriers don't count this category. The ship has fair and equal mix of weapons, with good ranges and fire power. The ship is escort with tools to do the job. The old Oliver Perry Class ships i served on, where more focus on Anti-Air and Submarines. Given the back and forth how US Navy can't decide what they want in smaller ship than the DDG-51s, Daegu-class mirrors what older salts in charge want from all the news reports they've published. A Warship that can do more traditional escort missions, while not trying to be a Burke.
That's my opinion. The future FFX that US Navy is shaping up to make unfortunately seems to be colored with politics verse what the service think it needs. I still have issues that the FFX suppose to have a 57mm cannon as it's main gun, which i don't think has enough hit power to damage a ship it's size. Which most have 76mm rapid-fire cannon or larger. Usually packing some long range anti-ship missiles. Use of Hellfire missiles seem to be short range and i suspect expensive to use to kill small ships coming.
I think I understand where you're coming from now, I spent a long time on our FFGs, which were essentially an OHP, and I will agree they had a decent mix in their firepower, what they didn't have was enough firepower. The OHP was a design to be as cheap and nasty as possible, given the constraints at the time. They had a mix of systems that were ok at everything, but good at nothing. This was both their greatest strength and weakness, they were fantastic for the battlespace role they eventually ended up playing, an independent MSO/MIO unit, they were terrible at AAW, ASW and ASuW, don't let nostalgia cloud your judgement. Traditionally speaking, a broad spectrum armament in a small or medium ship only really means an inadequate armament, the old saying Jack of all trades, master of none.
This small vessel has a good array of weapon types, that doesn't make it a good array of weapons. 16 VLS Cells is pitiful, while it's acceptable to be threatening against a parity opponent, in real terms it's hopeless against a superior opponent. These ships are not being built to actually fight, so much as to avoid fighting. It's a similar philosophy that lead to the Anzac class, very European. The US traditionally likes to specialise their vessels, deciding to cover each vessels weaknesses with another vessels strengths, it works a treat but costs a packet. Philosophically, they two are worlds apart.
The Hellfire don't have the range needed for naval fights. 5 miles I think. Going to need something with a little bit more.
It depends on variant.
Can small boats be spotted further than 5 miles from the ship's sensors?
It depends.
-
I would preferred to have the ship mount a 32-Cell VLS launcher myself. Some reason, US Navy is trying keep these boats REALLY under the budget. I don't get why they don't go for the larger Freedom Class ship. They want keep the tonnage the same on the Freedom variant they recently showed as model and what's been put out the navy.
Is it too cost ineffectant not to have more than one 57mm cannon though?? The Perry (while it still had Mk13 launcher) had two 25mm bushmaster cannons on the side. It's still slightly bigger capilbure machine gun, but still more fire power than short range .50 cal.
-
The reason we're looking at keeping the per ship cost down is that Congress is focused on ship numbers, not capability. Check USNI's website for the most recent congressional commentary on our ship building plan, and keep in mind they just told us to build two more oilers than we asked for...
-
I would preferred to have the ship mount a 32-Cell VLS launcher myself. Some reason, US Navy is trying keep these boats REALLY under the budget. I don't get why they don't go for the larger Freedom Class ship. They want keep the tonnage the same on the Freedom variant they recently showed as model and what's been put out the navy.
Is it too cost ineffectant not to have more than one 57mm cannon though?? The Perry (while it still had Mk13 launcher) had two 25mm bushmaster cannons on the side. It's still slightly bigger capilbure machine gun, but still more fire power than short range .50 cal.
Cannon take up space.
The Hellfires are more effective firepower than the Bushes.
What would you put in a 32-cell VLS?
-
What would you put in a 32-cell VLS?
If it's for a FFG, 8xEnhanced Sea Sparrow (4 missiles each), 16xSM-2 (or equivalent), 8xASROC (or equivalent). This assumes that Anti-ship missiles have their own launchers on deck somewhere.
-
32 Cell VLS, a 76mm gun, some Harpoon tubes, and a Ciws would keep it in line with other FFG s out there.
-
most of the time the anti-ships have to share space in the VLS though. especially on new build vessels.
-
Cannon take up space.
The Hellfires are more effective firepower than the Bushes.
What would you put in a 32-cell VLS?
I have agree with Sharpnel's selections.
If it's for a FFG, 8xEnhanced Sea Sparrow (4 missiles each), 16xSM-2 (or equivalent), 8xASROC (or equivalent). This assumes that Anti-ship missiles have their own launchers on deck somewhere.
That's right balance of weapons for it. The Oliver Hazard Perrys (not all of them, has 32 reload, while it could stash 4 harpoons down there as well) were missile boat, first. VLS let's them be able to fire bit faster, which is good. Evolved Sea Sparrows are short range but they can get job done, and Aegis equipped ship could take control the ship's missiles (depending if guidance system in them does this) direct it the target if the ship not able get solid lock.
I was only enlisted guy, who followed the naval developments since i was teenager to till now. Since the Cold War, something caused Navy's leadership to drift around trying figure out what works.
Anyways. Back to pictures!!
Sea Hunter USV (Unmanned Surface Vessel), she still on trials. However, their back in May 2017 talking about adding surveillance and possibly offensive anti-submarine weapons to the ship (https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/05/04/seahunter.aspx).
(http://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2016/04/Screen-Shot-2017-01-18-at-10.48.19.png)
I should note that this ship has a temporary pilot house attached to it. In normal operations, it would be not there.
-
Wrangler and Sharpnel; the issue is that they wanted to include Hellfires because they found their close in weapons were not sufficient to counter swarm boat tactics. What you are suggesting doesn't give them anything in place of Hellfire for the same role which is countering a boat swarm.
From Kidd: "The Hellfires are needed for anti-swarm-tactics, based on exercises where the single 57mm and side guns failed. Though its true they are a stopgap as a better OTH antiswarm antiship missile was supposed to be developed."
-
Wrangler and Sharpnel; the issue is that they wanted to include Hellfires because they found their close in weapons were not sufficient to counter swarm boat tactics. What you are suggesting doesn't give them anything in place of Hellfire for the same role which is countering a boat swarm.
I think overall its tough. Depending on how big of load of the Hellfires its flinging, they could send dozens of expendable boats at a ship armed with these launchers. It's may come down to that our bigger ships may need have small floatilla of drone boats that need make intercept. I was reading on how robotic engineers were solving issue with security bots intercepting rogue one. There free software out there (i forget the name, sorry) that could be apply to small USV like the Fleet Class unmanned surface boats.
I don't think there currently any answer public that Navy has come up with this yet. I've not heard though of any major nation employing swarm tactics aside from Iran and smaller rogue groups.
(http://www.navaldrones.com/images/486xNxCUSV.jpg.pagespeed.ic.v7qQ7L1b3Y.jpg)
-
I have agree with Sharpnel's selections.That's right balance of weapons for it. The Oliver Hazard Perrys (not all of them, has 32 reload, while it could stash 4 harpoons down there as well) were missile boat, first. VLS let's them be able to fire bit faster, which is good. Evolved Sea Sparrows are short range but they can get job done, and Aegis equipped ship could take control the ship's missiles (depending if guidance system in them does this) direct it the target if the ship not able get solid lock.
I was only enlisted guy, who followed the naval developments since i was teenager to till now. Since the Cold War, something caused Navy's leadership to drift around trying figure out what works.
It's 40 in the Mk 13 GMLS, with 8 Harpoon, although realistically sea keeping keeps that at 6. The primary AAW weapon was the SM-1, which was fitted to the original Ticonderoga CG's, but was replaced with SM-2 in short order. The SM-1 was a primary AAW weapon, the ESSM is a strictly point defence weapon, albeit infinitely more capable when it comes to point defence. There's a whole world here regarding capability that I could go into, but I digress, the OHP was designed for a role that effectively no longer exists, picket and convoy guard. They had some muscle in all domains of combat, purely to force the opponent to commit to killing the picket, and not the convoy, or dying if they committed to attacking the convoy if they ignored the escorts.
Modern FFGs of all stripes are built to be medium size multi-role combatants, they are far more capable than the OHP was, but they aren't as capable compared to the modern DDG or CG, their weapons are shorter ranged, their sensors less capable, and their crewing lacks redundancy. This is why they seem a little flaky compared to their larger sisters, they are a mingling of capabilities that prevent them from performing any of those capabilities exceptionally well. It wasn't that long ago that FFGs were considered ASW platforms in most navies, now that role has shifted to aircraft and corvettes/patrol craft, thus FFGs are a bit of a red headed step child.
I think overall its tough. Depending on how big of load of the Hellfires its flinging, they could send dozens of expendable boats at a ship armed with these launchers. It's may come down to that our bigger ships may need have small floatilla of drone boats that need make intercept. I was reading on how robotic engineers were solving issue with security bots intercepting rogue one. There free software out there (i forget the name, sorry) that could be apply to small USV like the Fleet Class unmanned surface boats.
I don't think there currently any answer public that Navy has come up with this yet. I've not heard though of any major nation employing swarm tactics aside from Iran and smaller rogue groups.
Personally, I think they are making mountains out of molehills. Swarm tactics are a purely littoral environment tactic, they don't work on the open ocean, if only because most big ships can outrun the swarm. I'd agree with the idea of using drones to attack them, but there are issues there too. If you want to use hellfires to take out swarm vessels, you are going to lose, the missile is likely more expensive than ten swarm vessels, and reloads are limited. To be honest, only an idiot would think of counter-swarm tactics other than Avoid the swarm![/] It means you are applying army thinking to a naval environment, and you will fail.
-
Unfortunately U.S.S. Cole showed what can happen when you don't properly secure the area around a ship, underway or not. Granted there were all sorts of (pre-9/11) rules of engagement in what was ostensibly a friendly port, but the idea of having boats in the water and a security perimeter of some sort enforced when you're at least stopped has merit. And these days...well, ducking rule 4 covers a multitude of sins so I'll do that instead.
-
*snip*
Personally, I think they are making mountains out of molehills. Swarm tactics are a purely littoral environment tactic, they don't work on the open ocean, if only because most big ships can outrun the swarm. I'd agree with the idea of using drones to attack them, but there are issues there too. If you want to use hellfires to take out swarm vessels, you are going to lose, the missile is likely more expensive than ten swarm vessels, and reloads are limited. To be honest, only an idiot would think of counter-swarm tactics other than Avoid the swarm![/] It means you are applying army thinking to a naval environment, and you will fail.
Sometimes geography doesn't give you a choice. The only ways to avoid a swarm depend on decisions not made at the level of ship captain, or even Fleet commander. If you're not allowed to strike the port facilities where the swarm is based pre-emptively and have to transit the associated littoral anyway, you're going to face said swarm.
-
If you're not allowed to strike the port facilities where the swarm is based pre-emptively
Current default full littoral maneuvers (i.e. Northern Coasts) usually place the swarm separate from any such easy-to-block/-hit port facilities btw - usually somewhere hidden along the coast, either in some bay hidden in the ground clutter or on the shore ready to pulled out of camouflage and into the sea.
Swarm tactics are a purely littoral environment tactic, they don't work on the open ocean
They work just fine on the Horn of Africa out on the open ocean too, using camouflaged motherships from which such a swarm can "stage".
The swarms tend to be smaller in that case though, mostly for logistics.
-
The specific problem I have in mind is probably a Rule 4 violation, but I can at least say it's quite a bit more constrained that your Northern Coasts example.
-
That strait you're probably thinking of ain't really all that narrow. And the swarms you're thinking of in that context ain't all based in that port to its northeast.
-
USNI's news page reports that 5 contenders for the FFX project has been chosen. (https://news.usni.org/2018/02/16/navy-picks-five-contenders-next-generation-frigate-ffgxprogram) Each one of them who has a foreign supplier has to team up with US bases Shipyard.
Variant of the Freedom, Variant of the Independence, a variant of the Spanish F100 Class Frigate, FREMM Class Frigate variant and navalized version of the Legend-Class Cutter.
I don't have high hopes for the Legend, even if it's navalized. I don't think its would be a great design for a Frigate.
-
Kato, I suspect we're thinking of different straits... I'll PM you...
-
I would have thought that the thing the Korean frigate may give up to the USN equivalent may be range
The South Koreans aren't looking at deploying thousands of miles from home in the way the USN (and at least previously the RN) do
-
Wait...so if I understand that article Wrangler linked correctly, the navy is paying each of the five bidders $15 million just to continue their design work for two years? WARNING!!! RULE 4 VERBAL EXPLOSION DETECTED!!!...old preist and a young priest...SECONDARY VERBAL EXPLOSIONS DETECTED!!!...and Lockheed is a partner on HOW MANY of those?...RULE 4 FILTER EXCEEDING TOLERANCES!!! SHUTTING DOWN COMM CHANNEL!!! <end of line>
-
Oh look... the legislative branch got its way again... It's almost like the system is designed to make that happen... ::)
-
Unfortunately U.S.S. Cole showed what can happen when you don't properly secure the area around a ship, underway or not. Granted there were all sorts of (pre-9/11) rules of engagement in what was ostensibly a friendly port, but the idea of having boats in the water and a security perimeter of some sort enforced when you're at least stopped has merit. And these days...well, ducking rule 4 covers a multitude of sins so I'll do that instead.
Pre 9/11 had nothing to do with it, the small craft achieved total tactical surprise through superior intelligence and action. The AAR for USS Cole was very interesting, highlighting the security deficiencies of the USN as a whole at the time. This is, unfortunately, very common, and is countered by revising your procedures once you acknowledge the possibility.
Sometimes geography doesn't give you a choice. The only ways to avoid a swarm depend on decisions not made at the level of ship captain, or even Fleet commander. If you're not allowed to strike the port facilities where the swarm is based pre-emptively and have to transit the associated littoral anyway, you're going to face said swarm.
That's exactly my point, there aren't very many water ways where that can happen, and they are mostly pretty easily avoidable, at the very least, if you must transit through, you are on your guard. There are perfectly acceptable gunnery mechanisms that don't rely on missiles that cost exponentially more than the vessels they are made to destroy. Ranging from 25mm up to 5 in, these gunnery systems use fused rounds which are specialised for use in this scenario. The only warship I'm aware of that has been lost to swarm attack is a Sri Lankan patrol craft, I've never heard of a large ship coming under direct attack, although the IRGCN did "attack" a mock carrier in this manner.
They work just fine on the Horn of Africa out on the open ocean too, using camouflaged motherships from which such a swarm can "stage".
The swarms tend to be smaller in that case though, mostly for logistics.
Those swarms are pirates and hijackers, they don't try to poke warships. We had a swarm come after us off the Horn of Africa, turned on our upper deck lights to show the gun and launcher, they couldn't hightail it fast enough. We've had to deal with these things for more than 50 years in the SEA region. This is commercial activity and warships, by and large, are immune to it, even if the swarm commits to the boarding action, it's pretty easy to turn out to sea, ring on all ahead full and get the hell out of there, few vessels can keep up with a warship doing max chickens.
I would have thought that the thing the Korean frigate may give up to the USN equivalent may be range
The South Koreans aren't looking at deploying thousands of miles from home in the way the USN (and at least previously the RN) do.
Sure they do! The ROKN deploy all over the world, from the US to the MEAO. The ROKN doesn't have task groups sailing left right and centre like the USN does, but they certainly travel very long distances.
-
Last "modern" US Frigate in service was the USS Simpson FFG-56. She was also something special where historical foot notes go. She was one of two ships in modern times to sink another Warship on April 8th, 1988.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/USS_Simpson_FFG-56.jpg/750px-USS_Simpson_FFG-56.jpg)
She was retired in 2015, be last her class taken out commission. (D'oh!) [drool]
Only Frigate left in US Commission and only on still active that sunk a enemy warship...is the USS Constitution. I don't think SHE going be escorting anyone. :))
-
More recent news, i just read a report that noted the UK Royal Navy has sold their Helicopter Carrier, HMS Ocean to Brazil. (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/190841/hms-ocean-sold-to-brazil-for-%C2%A384-million.html) From what I read it was done for cost savings, that HMS Queen Elizabeth would take on the role.
I guess Brazil isn't going try make their old carrier functional or replace it with a fixed wing enabled ship.
I don't think Ocean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_(L12)) could be modified to launch A-4 Skyhawks they used launch from older ship.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Apache_Helicopter_Takes_off_from_HMS_Ocean_During_Operation_Ellamy_MOD_45153052.jpg)
-
More recent news, i just read a report that noted the UK Royal Navy has sold their Helicopter Carrier, HMS Ocean to Brazil. (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/190841/hms-ocean-sold-to-brazil-for-%C2%A384-million.html) From what I read it was done for cost savings, that HMS Queen Elizabeth would take on the role.
I guess Brazil isn't going try make their old carrier functional or replace it with a fixed wing enabled ship.
I don't think Ocean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_(L12)) could be modified to launch A-4 Skyhawks they used launch from older ship.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Apache_Helicopter_Takes_off_from_HMS_Ocean_During_Operation_Ellamy_MOD_45153052.jpg)
so the rumour IS true.
I don't think its a good buy for the Brazilian Navy at all. Ocean is pretty knackered.
-
I can see the utility of a ship like this- Brazil has a whole lot of coast to cover after all. It's a much better idea than a fixed-wing flat-top for sure- I was stunned when they bought the current rust-bucket from the French. But... yeah, Ocean is pretty ancient, and I'd be curious to know just how capable she is at this point- on paper it's a great move, but how much more can those old engines take? How many cracks are showing up for the pumps to deal with, etc.?
It might be cheaper in the short-term to do this compared to building something new, but it's a move that long term will bite them, I suspect- either she'll be a Kuznetsov-style drydock-queen, or have to be retired after only a few years, and they'll be right back where they started.
-
HMS Ocean seems to have commercial maritime diesel engines and was generally built to commercial rather than military standards which may make maintenance easier for Brazil, especially if their main uses are going to be relatively easy on the structure.
-
The article does go on to say soon to be exHMS Ocean will NOT be a dock-queen.
I don't know, but i think DoctorMonkey has a point about her being built to commercial standards with off-the shelf technology may help. She lot younger than her older Invincible-Class Aircraft Carrier cousins.
I honestly don't what her material state is, but it properly going be better shape than the French carrier or even worse, the Russian Kiev carrier that got sold to India. Billions to fix clunky used aviation missile cruiser turn full on aircraft carrier.
-
She might be better thought of as a merchant ship with some military hardware tacked on the top
She is/will be great for littoral operations whether policing, disaster relief or whatever else the Brazilians might want to use her for... just don't let people shoot at her!
-
Well, at least Ocean is the devil you know. The thing with building a new ship is, it's real easy to scope-creep your way into spending way more than you intended, and even when it's done you don't really know what problems you are going to have with it...and new ships are definitely going to have problems. I believe it was just a couple pages back where the Germans actually sent their newest ship back to the builder as it failed their sea trials! An old ship? Well, you probably have a much more clear idea of what issues it has and what they will cost you. Plus, while you will probably have to put your won radars and weapons on it, you would be paying for all that on a newly built ship anyway. Honestly, as long as the structure and hull have some life left in them, it should work for them. In my opinion at least.
-
The Brazilian Navy's carrier program is one long and tragic joke.
(https://s10.postimg.org/fq125q4l5/mdb-minas-gerais.jpg)
Minas Gerais, the former Colossus-class HMS Vengeance was bought in 1956 and commissioned in 1960, but only operated helicopters and a couple of S-2 Trackers for most of her life. She installed a (second-hand) catapult in 1996, but did not operate any combat aircraft until January 2001, only to be decommissioned in October…!
(https://s10.postimg.org/ulzldbnpl/NAe-_S_o-_Paulo-_Capit_nea-da-_Esquadra1.jpg)
Sao Paulo, ex-Foch, has been an endless maintenance nightmare since entering service in 2001, ceasing flight operations after a catapult explosion in 2004 and has practically never sailed operationally ever since. It only makes a few short cruises every now and then. Brazil officially gave up on Sao Paulo in February 2017.
On the air wing side, Brazil purchased 23 Skyhawks (20 single-seat, 3 double-seat) from Kuwait in 1998. They can only carry bombs, guns and the AIM-9 Sidewinder. They first trapped on board Minas Gerais in January 2001.
Subsequently, Brazil planned to upgrade 12 of the Skyhawks (9 single, 3 double) with Israeli electronics and weapons but completed only 2 such Skyhawks in 2015, with 2 more scheduled to be completed in 2017. Four C-1 Traders were to have been refurbished into Turbo Traders for COD, AAR and AEW work, but were never completed or delivered due to legal issues.
In summary, from 1960 to 2017, Brazil’s 2 carriers and small fleet of fixed-wing naval aircraft have only really operated concurrently from 2001 to 2004, a grand total of 3 years.
The article does go on to say soon to be exHMS Ocean will NOT be a dock-queen.
I don't know, but i think DoctorMonkey has a point about her being built to commercial standards with off-the shelf technology may help. She lot younger than her older Invincible-Class Aircraft Carrier cousins.
Erm, quite the opposite.
Warships are put under different stresses from merchant marine ships. HMS Ocean was a stop-gap purchase until the QEs came online, and as such was built to lower-than-military-normal standards - often called "commercial standards" for short - with a very strict budget and shelf-life. There were numerous complaints about her accommodation - particularly the sewage treatment system - which were only rectified in her 2014 refit to make her suitable to serve as the Royal Navy's flagship. I am not an expert but it those who are say that her bulkheads, machinery etc. are designed to reliably last up to about now, and that's that.
No, I don't think its a very good choice by the Brazilian Navy at all.
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/dec33e26fd75adb99512e5a831b7dedb/tumblr_p4glajF1xZ1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The bridge and conning tower of the MN Richelieu.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/3f06b2cb9bcf5ec8d6c6d058def202d5/tumblr_p4frcoXs8j1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The MN Strassbourg, I would assume this is after the war, she's missing her bow and is probably being broken up and salvaged at her final resting place in Toloun.
-
Some fascinating pictures of the fire control computer aboard the USS Texas
(https://i.imgur.com/gGO2bRY.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/IiyRUGP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/F0S0Hyd.jpg)
Sauce - https://imgur.com/gallery/OjUcG
-
Wow, what italian spaghetti mess! That must not been fun to try repair if something went wrong.
-
As long as it's well labeled, you've got all the schematics, and previous repairs were done by competent people it's shouldn't be bad.
Today you generally don't repair electronics, it's just a question of pulling out the bad part and inserting the new. If you actually have to go in and fix stuff on a PCB, that is when you'll get a headache! :D
-
Many of the systems are redundant actually- while I'm not sure about Texas specifically, the account of the system aboard the later Washington was that there were two separate backups for almost any part of the fire control computer. Despite the age difference, Texas' computer was installed during her mid-life refit, and Washington was only built a few years after, so they're likely pretty similar in basic setup. Something goes wrong, get to work patching it up while the backups take over.
Of course, when the IT department reports that the problem is a 15-inch shell having passed through the compartment and wiped the whole damned thing out, it probably doesn't matter how redundant any of it is... ;D
-
Many of the systems are redundant actually- while I'm not sure about Texas specifically, the account of the system aboard the later Washington was that there were two separate backups for almost any part of the fire control computer. Despite the age difference, Texas' computer was installed during her mid-life refit, and Washington was only built a few years after, so they're likely pretty similar in basic setup. Something goes wrong, get to work patching it up while the backups take over.
Of course, when the IT department reports that the problem is a 15-inch shell having passed through the compartment and wiped the whole damned thing out, it probably doesn't matter how redundant any of it is... ;D
-
The bridge and conning tower of the MN Richelieu.
The MN Strassbourg, I would assume this is after the war, she's missing her bow and is probably being broken up and salvaged at her final resting place in Toloun.
Like many navies around the world, the French do not actually use any form of prefix before their warship names, it's simply Richelieu and Strassbourg. If you see a prefix, it's likely added by an outside group like the US Navy or NATO so the paperwork in question fits their sensibilities.
It always irks me whenever I see those...
-
I think that might have been Dunkerque, actually- her bow was removed during her partial-scrapping during the war, but I've never seen anything saying her sister had hers removed. Which isn't to say it's WRONG, just that based on what little I know this may be mistaken identity.
-
The Strassbourg/Dunkerke in the picture has her bow. The mooring quay may lead to confussion, but the bow is there, up to the anchors, seen as a black area next to the rock in the right side. Those were magnificient ships.
-
As long as it's well labeled, you've got all the schematics, and previous repairs were done by competent people it's shouldn't be bad.
Today you generally don't repair electronics, it's just a question of pulling out the bad part and inserting the new. If you actually have to go in and fix stuff on a PCB, that is when you'll get a headache! :D
Actually replacing components on a PCB isn't too bad, with practice. The real fun is diagnosing which of those components went bad.
-
Marauder, thanks for sharing wiring harnesses done right! O0
-
(https://i.imgur.com/F0S0Hyd.jpg)
How to wire a Mech, an Astech mightmare!
TT
-
Need more photos....USS Scott (Spruance Class Destroyer) cruising with a flotilla from the Spanish Armada in 1 February 1992. It's interesting gauging the size difference of the ships of the Armada, which are almost all American designs or variants as such. I was surprised how the aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias was not as big i thought it be next to the Scott.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/USS_Scott_%28DDG-995%29_with_spanish_warships.jpg)
-
That is a nice photo. The Austrius was only like 600 feet long, and the Spruance was 560 feet.
-
Need more photos....USS Scott (Spruance Class Destroyer) cruising with a flotilla from the Spanish Armada in 1 February 1992. It's interesting gauging the size difference of the ships of the Armada, which are almost all American designs or variants as such. I was surprised how the aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias was not as big i thought it be next to the Scott.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/USS_Scott_%28DDG-995%29_with_spanish_warships.jpg)
Eh, no, she wasn't a Spruance-class, she was a Kidd-class. The MK 26 GMLS fore and aft are dead give-aways. The Kidd was a variant of the Spru-can that added AAW to the ASW function of the original. Those ships, with New Threat Update, were considered to be the near-equals of the first flight Ticonderoga-class cruisers (which were originally DDG's).
And yes, they were/are a very large ship for a destroyer classification. At over 9,000 tons full load displacement, the design is larger than the Atlanta class CLAA from World War II.
The Principe de Asturias design is the second smallest post World War II aircraft carrier (smaller than LPH designs). Only the Thai navy operates a smaller carrier, and she's a reduced Principe de Asturias
-
Some fascinating pictures of the fire control computer aboard the USS Texas
(https://i.imgur.com/F0S0Hyd.jpg)
Sauce - https://imgur.com/gallery/OjUcG
Mmmm . . . asbestos cable wrapping . . . mmmm . . . asbestos pipe lagging . . . mmmm
-
Eh, no, she wasn't a Spruance-class, she was a Kidd-class. The MK 26 GMLS fore and aft are dead give-aways. The Kidd was a variant of the Spru-can that added AAW to the ASW function of the original. Those ships, with New Threat Update, were considered to be the near-equals of the first flight Ticonderoga-class cruisers (which were originally DDG's).
If my memory serves me correctly, the Kidd's were built for the Shah of Iran but not delivered due to some Rule 4 events . . .
-
You are correct. As a result, they had most excellent air conditioning.
-
Courtesy of the Iranian Revolution. Come now, its historical fact.
I wonder, was the USN happy to receive them? Or did they begrudge the sudden disruption to their carefully laid plans?
-
Only Frigate left in US Commission and only on still active that sunk a enemy warship...is the USS Constitution. I don't think SHE going be escorting anyone. :))
Maybe the the USCGC Eagle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Eagle_(WIX-327)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/EAGLE_under_full_sail_in_2013.jpg/300px-EAGLE_under_full_sail_in_2013.jpg)
-
that's a Barque, not a Frigate. ;)
-
Ugh. I'm getting old. I forgot double check see if she was Kidd or not.
She chills now with the Taiwanese fleet as the ROCS Kee Lung (DDG-1801). Ironically since she was in best of shape the Kidd-Class, she was brought first as the Chi Teh, which actually translates as "Kidd". They changed their mind renamed her after harbor city instead.
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnavyrecognition.com%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fnews%2F2017%2Fjune%2FROCS_Kee_Lung_DDG-1801_Ma_Kong_DDG-1805_Taiwan_Kidd-class.jpg&f=1)
Here Kee Lung with her sistership, Ma Gong. (exUSS Chandler (DDG-996))
-
I wonder if they cannibalized the Spruances for spares before they all got SINKEXed
-
that's a Barque, not a Frigate. ;)
I was going for the "escorting someone" not the frigate part
-
Wreck of Japanese battleship Hiei may have been located off Solomon Islands
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/26/wreck-japanese-battleship-hiei-may-have-located-solomon-islands/
-
Close ups of the Freedom Class
(http://www.seaforces.org/usnships/lcs/LCS-1-class_DAT/Freedom-class-LCS-photo-0024.jpg) (Bridge of the USS Fort Worth)
(http://www.seaforces.org/usnships/lcs/LCS-1-class_DAT/Freedom-class-LCS-photo-0028.jpg) Close up of the USS Freedom's aft.
30mm cannons look unique, they remind me of what you'd find on Stryker vehicles.
-
30mm cannons look unique, they remind me of what you'd find on Stryker vehicles.
Well...that’s probably because they DO mount them on some Strykers! A couple years ago the Army upgraded a bunch of Strykers with the very same Mk44 Bushmaster II cannon for deployment in Eastern Europe. Different turret system, but an almost identical gun.
-
Wreck of the Japanese Battleship Hiei maybe been found. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/26/wreck-japanese-battleship-hiei-may-have-located-solomon-islands/)
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2018/02/26/hiei-1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq8xZgQqi9DetMbSgL2Ph7VtiuDAWs874y5kvNEdHb8mQ.jpg?imwidth=1400)
-
In light of the recent news that there once again be a USS Canberra, here's a pic the Australian HMAS Canberra I.
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/HMAS%20Canberra%201930.jpg)
-
I see your HMAS Canberra (I) and raise you a USS Canberra (CA-70)
(http://www.usscanberra.com/Images/Albums/3._10-14-1943.jpg)
-
I see your HMAS Canberra (I) and raise you a USS Canberra (CA-70)
(http://www.usscanberra.com/Images/Albums/3._10-14-1943.jpg)
Yep, she's a pretty girl alright!
-
Close ups of the Freedom Class
(http://www.seaforces.org/usnships/lcs/LCS-1-class_DAT/Freedom-class-LCS-photo-0024.jpg) (Bridge of the USS Fort Worth)
(http://www.seaforces.org/usnships/lcs/LCS-1-class_DAT/Freedom-class-LCS-photo-0028.jpg) Close up of the USS Freedom's aft.
30mm cannons look unique, they remind me of what you'd find on Stryker vehicles.
They just now started to put the 30mm turrets on the Strykers and looks really wrong.
-
They just now started to put the 30mm turrets on the Strykers and looks really wrong.
They look like Lavs?
-
They look like Lavs?
Kinda big and ugly turret. It tips the scales as the MGS Stryker with the 105mm gun. So same tonnage with less fire power.
-
How is it that it weight same as the 105mm turret system?
-
The Stryker 30mms are also built on the Stryker double-v hull chassis, unlike the Stryker 105mms. It also carries the same infantry complement of the standard Stryker, unlike the 105mm which carries no passengers.
-
I wonder why the 30mm are so popular. Their smaller size gun, their on verge of machine guns rate of fire but not alot range. Naval battles aren't fought doing dueling broadsides anymore. #P
-
The reason has been mentioned several times: swarms...
-
The reason has been mentioned several times: swarms...
Small boat stuff since they are intended for closer to shore stuff than a blue water Arleigh Burke.
-
Yep, she's a pretty girl alright!
I think she looked even better after the upgrade to USS Canberra (CAG-2)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b6/ba/cf/b6bacff136a5b68d4435fbf4c2c78fdf.jpg)
-
than a blue water Arleigh Burke.
An Arleigh Burke carries a pair of 25mm Mk 38 guns for the same purpose.
-
I think she looked even better after the upgrade to USS Canberra (CAG-2)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b6/ba/cf/b6bacff136a5b68d4435fbf4c2c78fdf.jpg)
Do these launchers make my stern look big? ;D
-
Do these launchers make my stern look big? ;D
Yes, but the radar masts have a slimming effect!
-
i have to say that, being used to the modern VLS or on-deck box launchers, seeing images of those exposed missile systems always look a little odd to me.
-
Has it really been that long since the Mk.13 and Mk.26 launchers?
-
Has it really been that long since the Mk.13 and Mk.26 launchers?
I know, makes me feel old. :-(
We still run Mk 13, but it's legacy and due to be taken out of service in a couple of years.
i have to say that, being used to the modern VLS or on-deck box launchers, seeing images of those exposed missile systems always look a little odd to me.
Insanely complex systems, always running into technical difficulties, but damn, they look majestic! Especially the Mk 26, with the twin arms of doom.
-
Yikes i didn't know there was serious challenges with VLS system. That really bad news, no wonder why they never went to put them on the OHP when they were still in service. I guess the Navy needs decide if arm launcher isn't so bad as VLS. Alot moving parts of launcher and loading system vs alot complex software running complex box firing missiles.
The Mk 11 launcher from old Charles F Adams DDG, USS Lawrence.
(http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/destroyers/photos/charles_f_adams_class_weapons/mk11_launcher_ddg_4.jpg)
(http://www.seaforces.org/usnships/ddg/DDG-4-USS-Lawrence-Dateien/image019.jpg)
-
Yikes i didn't know there was serious challenges with VLS system.
He was talking about the Mk 13/26 launchers.
VLS is the future. Probably distributed systems such as is used by the DDG-1k Pyramidheads, cold launched, quad packed, multi compatible, etc
-
Read about the British M-class freaks of nature: M1 submarine-monitor, with a 300mm cannon; M2 submarine-aircraft carrier, lost with all hands; M3 submarine-minelayer...
(https://s9.postimg.org/56072lccf/m1-big-640x404.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/izojrncnj/M1_docked.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/gicske0gv/HMS_M1_from_air_port_bow.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/tmicx308f/British_Submarine_HMS_M2_2-640x361.jpg)
(https://s9.postimg.org/dbi90rvgf/Hms_m3_submarine_minelayer-640x334.jpg)
-
Do these launchers make my stern look big? ;D
Yes, but the radar masts have a slimming effect!
Is that a Mk13 missile launcher on your deck or are you just glad to see me?
HMAS Canberra (II)
(http://www.hmascanberra.com.au/assets/images/canberra/hmas_canberra_side.jpg)
-
Is that a Mk13 missile launcher on your deck or are you just glad to see me?
HMAS Canberra (II) in 2009, getting a big send off.
(http://www.hmascanberra.com.au/assets/images/canberra/hmas_canberra_an_3978444193.jpg)
(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58334.0;attach=44571)
-
Yikes i didn't know there was serious challenges with VLS system. That really bad news, no wonder why they never went to put them on the OHP when they were still in service.
The issue with the OHPs was that the SM-2 was longer than the SM-1 and wouldn't fit in the magazine, and the hull wasn't tall enough to expand it to fit the SM-2.
-
HMAS Canberra (II) in 2009, getting a big send off.
That's Adelaide my old girl :-)
The issue with the OHPs was that the SM-2 was longer than the SM-1 and wouldn't fit in the magazine, and the hull wasn't tall enough to expand it to fit the SM-2.
Then how did the RAN achieve this very feat in 2003? Can't fit SM2-ER, but you can get SM2-MR.
He was talking about the Mk 13/26 launchers.
VLS is the future. Probably distributed systems such as is used by the DDG-1k Pyramidheads, cold launched, quad packed, multi compatible, etc
Indeed I was, sorry if it was unclear.
-
This is ex-HMAS Canberra (II) http://www.hmascanberra.com.au/ (http://www.hmascanberra.com.au/)
Then how did the RAN achieve this very feat in 2003? Can't fit SM2-ER, but you can get SM2-MR.
Because we cheated ^-^
HMAS Sydney (sister ship to Adelaide and Canberra) Mk 41 VLS
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/HMAS_Sydney_VLS.jpg)
We protruded the launcher above the deck O0
Anyway that's not a knife launcher . . . This is a launcher ^-^
HMAS Canberra (III)
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/3d4f095c6091d36347393fba1870aecf?width=1024)
-
This is ex-HMAS Canberra (II) http://www.hmascanberra.com.au/ (http://www.hmascanberra.com.au/)
Because we cheated ^-^
HMAS Sydney (sister ship to Adelaide and Canberra) Mk 41 VLS
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/HMAS_Sydney_VLS.jpg)
We protruded the launcher above the deck O0
Anyway that's not a knife launcher . . . This is a launcher ^-^
HMAS Canberra (III)
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/3d4f095c6091d36347393fba1870aecf?width=1024)
The Mk 41 holds ESSM in quadpacks, the Mk 13 holds SM2-MR and RGM-84 Harpoon. Trust me, the Mk 13 magazine can easily hold SM2-MR. We didn't cheat at all. :-)
-
Wait, i didn't know that Smaller VLS Launchers were able to house Harpoons. I know the US Navy didn't bother with VLS for them, but i hadn't heard of the smaller cell launchers mounting them. You need certain kind as well. I assumed that Perrys were mounting the Self-Defense version of the Mk 41s given the room problems. I had known Auss Perrys did mount them and always thought it was strange the US didn't op to refit some of the youngest Perrys with them so they weren't completely neutered.
-
I had completely forgotten that the Australian navy had a new Canberra. That really makes me wonder why the U.S navy has named one of the new LCS Canberra.
-
I had completely forgotten that the Australian navy had a new Canberra. That really makes me wonder why the U.S navy has named one of the new LCS Canberra.
Hoping to sell LCS's to the Australians?
-
Respect and recognition for past joint ops, such as WWII?
-
Well...you know how Hanse Davion had Capellan Confederation star systems printed on his wedding dishes?
-
Respect and recognition for past joint ops, such as WWII?
Said recognition not extending to consideration that HMAS Canberra and USS Canberra might work side by side apparently :D
-
Well...you know how Hanse Davion had Capellan Confederation star systems printed on his wedding dishes?
O0
Not even a picture that's awesome
-
Said recognition not extending to consideration that HMAS Canberra and USS Canberra might work side by side apparently :D
It's OK, you can just call the US one the Ameri-Can 8)
-
That 8cell VLS upgrade seems like a downgrade from the Mk13 launcher with 40 missiles ammo.
-
That 8cell VLS upgrade seems like a downgrade from the Mk13 launcher with 40 missiles ammo.
It was added to, not replacing, the Mk.13 launcher, giving the Aussie-cans the ability to fire SM-2MR Standards and Harpoons from the Mk.13 and ESSMs from the VLS.
@Nightlord1, do you know what was previously in the space where they stuffed the VLS?
-
Said recognition not extending to consideration that HMAS Canberra and USS Canberra might work side by side apparently :D
Clearly the Aussie ship is more Canberra than the American one, so in a joint op you'd have USS Canberra and HMAS Canberrer. :)
And if any mishaps occur, the heavy lift ship called in would be MV Can-Bearer. ;D
-
It'll be simple. There'll be HMAS Canbra, and USS Can-Berrah. See also Melbin/Mel-Bourne, Tronno/Tor-Ontoh.
-
So what happens when the Tronno and Tor-Ontoh make a port call in Taranto? ;D
-
Much wine is drunk. The crew get drunker. Much maudlin singing, and the captain of the Tor-Ontoh wonders how his underpants ended up on the town hall flagpole.
-
Then it gets really confusing when the HMCS Toronto arrives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Toronto_(FFH_333)
(http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/images/navy-history/toronto-is2013-4003-06.jpg)
Gotta love their crest: (http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/images/navy-history/toronto-badge.jpg)
-
Hoping to sell LCS's to the Australians?
Noting that the Independence-class LCS is designed and built by Austal USA (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Austal Limited, a public company, listed on the Australian Stock Exchange and headquartered in Henderson, Western Australia).
So technically Australians are selling LCS's to Americans . . . ;D
USS Canberra (LCS-30) will be an Independence-class LCS
(https://americansecuritytoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/USS-Tulsa-LCS-16-Austal-USA.jpg)
-
It's a SeaCat!
-
@Nightlord1, do you know what was previously in the space where they stuffed the VLS?
To be honest, it varies from ship to ship. On Sydney, the only original Australian pattern, US built FFG upgraded, it was the Vault, man at arms store and a couple of other storerooms and some of the repair 2 flat and armoury.
On Darwin, it was just storerooms and the repair 2 flat, and Newcastle and Melbourne lost much the same as Sydney, except the vault, which is in a totally different place. Memories are hazy, since the last time I served on an un-upgraded FFG was 2006. :-P
-
Wasn't Deck Department usually in the bow? I remember (i think) that's where it was on the US commissioned ships.
-
Walking the flight line on a Canberra-Class LHD. Flight deck was looking for debris to prevent engines sucking it the aircraft's engines.
(https://edge.alluremedia.com.au/uploads/businessinsider/2016/02/navy17.jpg)
-
50 and done.