The first and original USS Enterprise, Sloop of War in commission with the Continental Navy in 1775.very nice looking vessel
(https://www.thevintagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ent_i-1.jpg)
The first and original USS Enterprise, Sloop of War in commission with the Continental Navy in 1775.I already posted that one....
(https://www.thevintagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ent_i-1.jpg)
I already posted that one....Sorry, the picture didnt load when i reading it. :-\
Some ships during the 1898 era]
USS Helena - She is her sister ships sunk six Spanish ships during the conflict. She was a gunboat noted for her rapid-fire guns.
(https://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/img/helena.jpg)
USS Constitution during the Spanish-American War....well she doing better now unlike almost all the ships from the era.
(https://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/img/constfrnt.jpg)
So which level had the food court?Just above the shopping mall.
I had trouble believing that an imploded hull would be "intact" as described.The pressure vessel of the submarine is intact. The hull itself imploded, with the pile being those parts of it outside the pressure vessel that ripped off from it. The four large parts are therefore the pressure vessel itself, the bow section with the torpedo room, the aft section where the propeller is mounted and the sail.
Wait...the Main was made to fight a Brazilian PreDreadnought??because USA considered the Americas her own turf. Manifest Destiny and Monroe Doctrine.
Why??
I dunno, predreads aren't my thing, but the Kearsarge looks particularly ugly even for a predread.
And speaking of early US Battleships, the Kearsarge class was quite unique (although not the only USN battleship to do so with mounting 8-inch guns above the 12 or in this case 13-inch main guns)Does that have a bow turret and broadsides?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Uss_kentucky_bb-6.jpg)
Does that have a bow turret and broadsides?
The Argentine Govt acknowledges it's doable. The (apparent) question is financing.
Okay...colour me impressed as all hell.I mean... caveat here, doable and feasible are two somewhat different things. Like a billion dollars different, apparently, unless Ocean Infinity comes up with a much lower cost estimate. I don't think anybody can shell out that kind of change on the spot, except maybe the US, and why would they get involved...?
Idle question: I was at the USS Midway museum a few years back and I had the chance to speak with a docent who used to fly off the Midway. He described landing on the Midway to be more difficult than some other ships, because she had a more pronounced rolling motion. Given that I know next to nothing about naval architecture, what should I feed into Google to get a deeper answer to this question?
(Nassau, from an airship, showing her unique arrangement)Not quite unique; the layout was retained for the followon Helgoland class laid down the next year.
Idle question: I was at the USS Midway museum a few years back and I had the chance to speak with a docent who used to fly off the Midway. He described landing on the Midway to be more difficult than some other ships, because she had a more pronounced rolling motion. Given that I know next to nothing about naval architecture, what should I feed into Google to get a deeper answer to this question?
The Wikipedia entry for the class as a whole has an explanation on the rolling...it was on Midway only and after she was bulged in 1986.The article on Midway, herself, mentions the blisters as an attempted fix for "persistent seakeeping issues." I have found reference to green water (https://www.midwaysailor.com/midway/history.html) coming over the flight deck, as far back as 1945, but I'm looking for a bit more on the why.
Ruger
Midway was always somewhat top heavy due to it's armored deck.That'll throw her center of mass higher up, yeah, and make her rolls worse.
...yeah, I meant 'unique' more in a 'Germans tried this and nobody else' way.
Midway was always somewhat top heavy due to it's armored deck.
On that note, Ride The St. Lo! (you must be this tall)
(https://www.dondennisfamily.com/USS_St_Lo/new_photos/pics/carrier_rock_roll.jpg)
actually, the answer is YES. But the question is can the carrier go through such sea states unscathed? No. And that's what the Typhoon Cobra was.
This Q/A article (https://www.quora.com/How-can-an-aircraft-carrier-survive-a-sea-state-of-8-and-9) on Quora had interesting answer about IF Aircraft Carriers could survive sea states as high as 8 & 9. The answer is NO.
"Survive" sure. "Remain air-operations capable without damage" hell no.
Damn that looks like a good slice of pumpkin pie.Personally i like those bridge wings myself.
36 depth charges (isn't that alot?)Depends on how they're laid out. As built the Fubukis only carried 18 (ONI says 14) in racks of nine (or seven) for two depth charge throwers. Late during the war two additional racks and throwers were added.
Yeah, but that cause of accident though:
"Yeah hi Tanker, this is Frigate, we're getting awfully close, so you go here and I go there and we'll be cool, aright?"
"Gotcha Frigate... uhhh, aren't you gonna veer off like we said?"
"Naw man it's cool, we've got room, I'm just gonna pass this here long low building between us first"
"...what long low building are you talking about?"
"Oh, fudge nuggets"
Food for thought
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25218/we-have-the-first-official-report-on-norways-sunken-frigate-and-it-isnt-pretty
TIL the lead ship of the class preceding the Fridtjof Nansens, the HNoMS Oslo, also ran aground and sank in 199-something.
In valhalla the builders ancestors gaze upon this, and palm their faces in shame.And remember they crafted such amazing boats out of planks on top of each other using simple tools including ax, what a work of art the Longboat is.
And remember they crafted such amazing boats out of planks on top of each other using simple tools including ax, what a work of art the Longboat is.
This won't be helping sales of the F-100 derivatives will it?
I doubt the Australians will go for more than their current 3 Hobart class and I doubt the bids for Canadian or US frigates-of-the-future will be helped
Reading the linked report, it sounds like a couple of major errors in ship handling that will probably be career ending for a few officers but I don't like the sound of the failures of damage control and containment
I suspect everyone else will be looking at their ship design to see what they can learn too
Where's Dirk Pitt and Al Giordino of NUMA?Probably right there, having been brought in as a salvage consultant but subsequently recruited by NATO covert ops to help foil a dastardly plot by a secret organisation to steal the guidance system of a prototype hypersonic antiship missile carried onboard for sale to the highest bidder
Where's Dirk Pitt and Al Giordino of NUMA?
TT
Where's Dirk Pitt and Al Giordino of NUMA?
TT
Bit of a departure for the Royal Navy, but the 4 new nuclear ballistic missile subs will be named the Dreadnought class and not apparently have contiguous D-names. That opens up the field considerably.Vanguard. Victorious.
Boat 1 - Dreadnought
Boat 2 - Valiant
Boat 3 - ?
Boat 4 - ?
Place your bets gentlemen. I've got Warspite and Ramillies.
Vanguard. Victorious.Both these along with Vigilant and Vengeance are the current British SSBNs.
Bit of a departure for the Royal Navy, but the 4 new nuclear ballistic missile subs will be named the Dreadnought class and not apparently have contiguous D-names. That opens up the field considerably.Fearless, Defiance
Boat 1 - Dreadnought
Boat 2 - Valiant
Boat 3 - ?
Boat 4 - ?
Place your bets gentlemen. I've got Warspite and Ramillies.
But what is it if not a statement of intent anyway.Ultima Ratio Mundo? Considering what she's a harbinger of.
Boat 3 - Incompetence
Boat 4 - Never Built due to 2nd English Civil War.
:)
Probably right there, having been brought in as a salvage consultant but subsequently recruited by NATO covert ops to help foil a dastardly plot by a secret organisation to steal the guidance system of a prototype hypersonic antiship missile carried onboard for sale to the highest bidder
Unfortunately they ran into spies, femme fatales and combat divers of the Russian, Chinese, Israeli and Iranian Navies all aimed at the same objective. Much derring-do and blood-chilling underwater combat was had and the guidance system was safely restored into NATO hands
Whereupon Dirk discovered he was really employed by a rogue admiral who wanted the system so he could fit it onto an air-launched cruise missile which could deliver a nerve agent precisely into the HQ of NATO Enhanced Forward Presence in the Baltics, with planted evidence pointing at Russia and precipitating WW3 thus avenging said rogue admiral on all participants of the senseless Cold War which deprived him of his daughter many decades ago
After a thrilling car, helicopter and private jet chase Dirk managed to engineer the lawndarting of the admiral's modified Su-27 destroying the missile and nerve gas, and has the admiral arrested by the real Military Intelligence after which he goes back to the quiet life of actually raising the Helge Ingstad for reals.
All of which happened without a peep in the media, I swear. Ah the things our Govts cover up.
Bit of a departure for the Royal Navy, but the 4 new nuclear ballistic missile subs will be named the Dreadnought class and not apparently have contiguous D-names. That opens up the field considerably.
Boat 1 - Dreadnought
Boat 2 - Valiant
Boat 3 - ?
Boat 4 - ?
Place your bets gentlemen. I've got Warspite and Ramillies.
British names seem so much cooler then American ship names. I hope they use something that hasn't been used a lot.
Maybe time for a new HMS Ark Royal, HMS Revenge or HMS Repulse?Ark Royal is more for carriers, but Revenge and Repulse are excellent choices
Ruger
Nothing wrong with that one :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G95g0vzTAKI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Surprise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Surprise) (and again)
In fairness, we named a submarine the U.S.S. Wahoo. Granted, it's a type of fish, but still.As well as Bass, Cuttlefish, Salmon, Cod, Mackerel, Bream, Pomfret, Herring, Hake, Haddock, Halibut... while I understand naming conventions are one thing, I don't want the fleet review to read like a menu...
British names seem so much cooler then American ship names. I hope they use something that hasn't been used a lot.
I quite liked the old American convention of naming after cities, states and battles. Not so much the current convention for naming after people.
British names seem so much cooler then American ship names. I hope they use something that hasn't been used a lot.USS Cowpens would like a word with you... ;D
HMS Argyll. Once again, tis a pity we will not see ships of its like any more, it's all stealth cupolas and pyramid heads with a spinning knob on top - and I don't mean the captain...
Some of their newer ones more stealthy but not by alot though. Akizuki class Destroyer, JS Akizuki.
(http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Japan-Maritime-Self-Defense-Force/Destroyer/Akizuki-class_DAT/DD-115_DAT/DD-115-Akizuki-014.jpg)
Is reduced RCS a matter of putting some effort into cleaner lines and such, or are other technologies involved like radar absorbent materials and stuff?
Biggest thing for getting rid of RCS on a ship is eliminating every curved surface you can. Round objects have a point on them, at any angle, where they're perfectly reflecting right back at the emitter; if you look real close at a Burke for example you'll see that even things like railings are trapezoidal in shape.You can do in the future, just do img button and where it says [ img ] (i'm spacing it so it' doesn't mess up. you can do [ img width=499] (hyperlink) [ /img ] It will reduce the picture size no matter how big.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/US_Navy_070820-N-9758L-180_Sailors_on_board_Arleigh_Burke-class_guided-missile_destroyer_USS_O%27Kane_%28DDG_70%29_man_the_rails_as_she_makes_her_way_pier_side_to_Naval_Station_Pearl_Harbor.jpg)
(It's a really big image)
The other thing is getting rid of every 90 degree angle you can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector) So you get slight tapers on things, mostly, and things angled just a little off axis.
Granted you can't do that with EVERYTHING on a ship, but you can tone the returns down a lot. Maybe you can't convince an incoming ASM you don't exist, but you can make it get a lot closer before it finally sees you and launches - maybe even within your own air defense envelope, and bag the shooter before they can fire.
Her revolutionary design, changed many things, all ships built prior to her became pre-Dreadnoughts.Been looking up a bit when the term appeared. It seems to first have been used in 1909 in British debates on the Navy, with First Lord of the Admiralty McKenna being about the only one who used it at the time.
You can do in the future, just do img button and where it says [ img ] (i'm spacing it so it' doesn't mess up. you can do [ img width=499] (hyperlink) [ /img ] It will reduce the picture size no matter how big.
An interesting thing about Dreadnought... she was one of three ships that all were developed at roughly the same time by different countries to switch to an all-big gun setup, with none of them aware of the plans of the other two (Japan's Settsu ended up being given mid-size guns during construction due to a lack of heavy gun availability, and the American South Carolina took a long time to finish up despite starting before Dreadnought).
I believe you mean Satsuma for the Japanese warship...
Ruger
Is reduced RCS a matter of putting some effort into cleaner lines and such, or are other technologies involved like radar absorbent materials and stuff?
The passenger steamer SS Warrimoo was quietly knifing its way through the waters of the mid-Pacific on its way from Vancouver to Australia. The navigator had just finished working out a star fix and brought Captain John DS. Phillips, the result. The Warrimoo's position was LAT 0º 31' N and LONG 179 30' W. The date was 31 December 1899. "Know what this means?" First Mate Payton broke in, "We're only a few miles from the intersection of the Equator and the International Date Line". Captain Phillips was prankish enough to take full advantage of the opportunity for achieving the navigational freak of a lifetime.
He called his navigators to the bridge to check & double check the ship's position. He changed course slightly so as to bear directly on his mark. Then he adjusted the engine speed.
The calm weather & clear night worked in his favor. At mid-night the SS Warrimoo lay on the Equator at exactly the point where it crossed the International Date Line! The consequences of this bizarre position were many:
The forward part (bow) of the ship was in the Southern Hemisphere & in the middle of summer.
The rear (stern) was in the Northern Hemisphere & in the middle of winter.
The date in the aft part of the ship was 31 December 1899.
In the bow (forward) part it was 1 January 1900.
This ship was therefore not only in:
Two different days,
Two different months,
Two different years,
Two different seasons
But in two different centuries - all at the same time!
Well, SS is a commercial merchant marine ship from the US- like HMS stood for a Brit commercial ship like HMS Titantic. USN ships are the USS Whatever.RMS for Titanic, Royal Mail Ship/Steamer. SS was a standard designation for steam ship back in the day.
Japanese officials brushed off the criticism, saying the Izumo will be a multifunctional warship used as an aircraft carrier only when necessary for national defence.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-18/japan-to-launch-first-aircraft-carriers-since-wwii/10632254 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-18/japan-to-launch-first-aircraft-carriers-since-wwii/10632254)
I wonder if they will be classified by the Japanese as an Aircraft Carrier or will they class it as a VTOL Destroyer?
Multifunctional through-deck destroyer ;D
Why not Japan have a light carrier. The carrier is more than capable of flying off F-35s, its the size of a Wasp. Not in Tonnage at least.Entirely rule-4 reasons, it's extremely political with the Japanese. Suffice it to say they're taking deep refuge in the way everyone's renaming their ships these days and breaking away from the typical descriptions codified through WWII. "That's not a frigate, it's a littoral combat ship!" And so on. Good lord, most "destroyers" these days have the firepower of WWII battleships and would be major surface combatants anyway, but nobody calls them that.
From my understanding of the F-35 program (and I am 6 years out of touch), it is a worldwide partnership program. So it generally plans to avoid having J-models, I-models, S-models etc. All the program partners sign on for an A, B or C model with different Block releases but the idea is that the program partners will all share a pool of spare engines, avionics and parts, so interchangeability of these parts is paramount over customised local fitouts.
At the end of the day, the Japanese are no worse than us here in Australia.
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/ships/20150827RAN8100087_101-2.JPG)
We had our helicopter destroyers built with the ski-jump because it was going to cost to much to have Navantia build the ships without them ???
As I understand it the ramp is part of the hull structure, so removing it required a major redesign. I guess the RAN might have gotten a bit paranoid about that after the trouble with the Collins boats...
Would the Canberra class be capable of operating the F-35B if they got a detachment from, say, the UK or USMC? There's the business of needing the special deck coating but apart from that the baseline model from Navantia that they were taken from seems to be planned to do that for Spain...
Nope, they don't have any arrestor fittings or FW safety/survival gear. It is a relatively simple refit, we didn't meddle with the structure of the ship, just left a few bits out. It's more work and cost than a single deployment is worth though, so not likely to ever happen.
If it's the F35 you don't need the arrestor cables with a VTOL landing even the Royal Navy's rolling landing doesn't need them the roll is very short and relatively speaking slow
EDIT my doesn't need isn't the same as a pilot would want I understand that any safety feature is a welcome one
She's an amphibious assault ship, not a destroyer. :-)
The Canberra is highly useful, but looks like a misloaded container ship :(Funny because it's true. ;D ;D ;D
None other than the very best (visually) of them all
(http://i.imgur.com/Y3RJfJS.jpg)
16 one-shot missiles. One ripple salvo.They were pretty scary in 1985. Consider the antimissile defences available then.
Maaaaaybe one sunk IS CV.
Why Harrier when you can F35B?Cost less for one thing. Less extensive modifications u need to the ship's flightdeck is another.
They were pretty scary in 1985. Consider the antimissile defences available then.
And coming in along with a swarm of Backfires and Badgers launching Kitchens and Kelts.
Why Harrier when you can F35B?
They were pretty scary in 1985. Consider the antimissile defences available then.
And coming in along with a swarm of Backfires and Badgers launching Kitchens and Kelts.
Its too bad that the Canberra couldn't be supplied newly made Harrier aircraft. Its was crime they were discontinued. They would work on Canberra fine, provide support for Amphib assaults and give the fleet a degree of protection from enemy aircraft, but alot.
I wish they were able to make more if it were practical.
Pretty sure you mean Backfires and Blinders, Badger couldn't carry As 4 Kitchen or AS 6 Kingfish.I think the upgraded ones could. And there's AS-5 Kelts. Doesn't matter if they're high-supersonic or not, just sling a whole crowd of whatever AShMs, and saturate that mid-80s missile defence.
We certainly could fit them with FW facilities, but we don't want to.What would that entail?
Back in '98 - '99 when I was either working up to deploy or already deployed to the Med, a team from NAVAIR came out to the NASSAU (LHA 4) to check the aviation spaces for MV-22 compatibility; as I recall, "high-hat" space (aka a tall hanger) was the first issue. Fuel capacity was another and test aboard WASP high lighted the flight deck coating problem. Throw in a different set aviation calibration requirements and potential magazine storage issues (i.e., small arms for side mounted machine guns versus 500 to 2000lb bombs) … sure can get pricey.
What would that entail?
Pretty sure you mean Backfires and Blinders, Badger couldn't carry As 4 Kitchen or AS 6 Kingfish.
Back in '98 - '99 when I was either working up to deploy or already deployed to the Med, a team from NAVAIR came out to the NASSAU (LHA 4) to check the aviation spaces for MV-22 compatibility; as I recall, "high-hat" space (aka a tall hanger) was the first issue. Fuel capacity was another and test aboard WASP high lighted the flight deck coating problem. Throw in a different set aviation calibration requirements and potential magazine storage issues (i.e., small arms for side mounted machine guns versus 500 to 2000lb bombs) … sure can get pricey.
IIRC, the hangar is tall enough, and most of the magazine space requirements can be satisfied by insertion of blast doors and reassigning space.My experience is on US amphibs, twenty-two months of it and I've worked with a number of Australian liaison officers to the USMC. I know there has been a bit of "copying" and learning in both directions over the past decade.
There are two major issues with the ship itself, leaving the pilot and deck crew training aside. One issue is the deck, this is not complicated to remedy, but is costly to acquire, and also costly to maintain due to the ablative nature of the coating. The fittings for emergency recovery and arrest are mandatory, I'm afraid, you need those because you want to be able to recover damaged fighters.
The second issue is bunk space allocation. Every naval ship has a watch and station bill, or scheme of complement, and these positions are ferociously argued over with organisations virtually coming to blows regarding the number of bunks and positions on board. Since the majority of the bunks on the Canberra class are army, guess how likely it is that Navy would be able to resume any of them? That means we'd need to wear it out of hide, and we have an unfortunate nature of minimising bunks on Navy ships. So not only would we have a massive fight on our hands should we attempt to take any Army bunks, the knives would come out should we seek to reallocate whatever bunks we have in Navy hands. Not a fun thing, and this isn't even going into some of the incredibly complex and expensive whole of Navy issues like training requirements, Navy mission, Navy personnel requirements, and the pesky Defence Act that states unequivocally that FW are the domain of Air Force!
And let me tell you, Air Force members do not like staying anywhere other than resorts!
Of course, when the embarked personnel are the Fleet Commander and his staff, reorganization of spaces starts with the XO's stateroom and rolls down from there... :)Shhh, don't scare them.
Heh... having been on said Fleet Commander's staff, I was stuffed into a six-man bunkroom. The boss was well taken care of, though... ^-^As all Staff Officers should be. Somehow, my last two stints embarked I ended up in a stateroom by myself.
Lucky you! My previous staff tour, I only had one room mate, but our stateroom was right underneath one of the jet blast deflectors... xpMy last MEU deployment, back in '00, I was just aft of the gym and far enough forward to wonder aloud if we were still at flight quarters just about the time the Harriers went screaming overhead. My first big deck float, I spent six months directly below the forward portion of spot six...so I got to listen to the drag and drop of chains to gripe the aircraft down. Every night. At 2200. While underway.
My experience is on US amphibs, twenty-two months of it and I've worked with a number of Australian liaison officers to the USMC. I know there has been a bit of "copying" and learning in both directions over the past decade.
STOVL aircraft and helicopters don't need arresting gear if you are talking trap wires and nets. If there were, I never saw the equipment nor do I remember doing any drills on either NASSAU or WASP. I've asked friend, a former Harrier squadron CO, if I'm misremembering. But a quick literature review online garnered me the sentiment that it is easier to "stop and land" via STOVL than to "land and stop" a conventional aircraft.
Here's a video: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/harrier-has-stuck-nose-gear-lands-jet-on-a-stool-pilo-1596517824
Basically, the solution for the nose gear not working is a stool. UPDATE: The reply I got was basically the stool, ditch or divert.
So a common misperception about US amphibs is that belong to the USMC. While it is true Marines deploy most often aboard them the spaces are designated for either Embarked Troops (green spaces) or Ship's Company (blue spaces) rather than a specific Service. If the "flavor" of the embarked force changes they have to figure out space use within the constraints of remaining in the Embarked Troops areas. For example, below are pics of LHD-3 and LHD-5. KEARSARGE embarked CH-53s and CH-46s while BATAAN was carrying an AV-8B squadron and some CH-53s. Cargo that doesn't fit in those designated spaces ends up being Cargo Left on Pier (CLOP) and personnel end up being People Left on Pier (PLOP). Those who end up surprised by this status are PO-PLOP...or Pissed Off People Left on Pier.
What is typical Royal Navy taskforce nowNow - nothing. QE won't be operational for some time yet
Then so will this, another fleet auxiliary, this one on a part time basis - the Point class ro/ro
Does remind me of this ...
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/thunderbirds/images/8/8b/Warship.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140617203152)
Then so will this, another fleet auxiliary, this one on a part time basis - the Point class ro/ronice looking vessel
(https://i.postimg.cc/9FfpCx2H/MV-Hartland-Point-1-740x381.jpg)
Is that a small attempt for a ship to be more aerodynamic and be a little more efficient?
Most ships with the open bow end up scooping up a lot of water when they dig into the wave in front, puts a lot of stress on the frame.Northern Atlantic Ocean is a mean one especially.
Northern Atlantic Ocean is a mean one especially.That may be difficult as the only vessel I know of by that name is at the bottom of the ocean somewhere near the Falklands
That said, I wonder if there's any plans to refit the deck of Atlantic Conveyor to operate F-35Bs...
That may be difficult as the only vessel I know of by that name is at the bottom of the ocean somewhere near the FalklandsThey made a new one in 1985, apparently. Atlantic Container Line still operates it as a container/RORO and added five more in the last couple years about twice the displacement.
I look at photos like that and wonder how Zumwalt is supposed to NOT transform into a submarine with its 'wave-piercing' hull design. Yeah, I know it's all about displacement and such, but that's still inviting a LOT of water tonnage to hammer down from above.I expect it's designed with that in mind. Keeping the crew under deck all the time doesn't just improve stealth. :)
Blue water is ALL mean. Worst I've personally experienced was the days after we rounded Cape Horn. Master and Commander gave a good feel for it.
Blue water is ALL mean. Worst I've personally experienced was the days after we rounded Cape Horn. Master and Commander gave a good feel for it.
Yep, the roughest seas I've ever seen have to be in the Great Southern Ocean, it can either be the worst water way in the world or a lovely environment of flat water and magnificent star fields, sometimes within hours of each other. :-PDefinitely! When we actually passed Cape Horn, the weather was beautiful. 24 hours later, 50-knot winds, 30+ foot seas, and snow...
Everything old is new again... The X-Bow(tm) is an award-winning Norwegian ship design that, well, just take a look for yourself
(https://i.postimg.cc/9MdnbLBz/reflistc.png)
I saw this link on Quora - I won't post the photos directly as they are huge but if anyone knows how to shrink them and wants to...This is how you do it. Just cap off both ends of the line.
http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/25634/awe-inspiring-images-from-underneath-a-well-worn-uss-nimitz-the-navys-oldest-carrier?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral
This is how you do it. Just cap off both ends of the line.
img width=399]image address[/img
I saw this link on Quora - I won't post the photos directly as they are huge but if anyone knows how to shrink them and wants to...
That pic looks like it's just begging to have a wave climb the bow and do bad things to the helicopter deck and pilot house windows. I'd be willing to bet that the design would minimize that, though.
That flight deck is more than 30 metres above the sea surface, it's pretty safe.
Wow...that thing is a lot bigger than I thought it was. But if a carrier can take water over the bow, I would thing pretty much anything can. But it would have to be in pretty extreme conditions.As far as I can see it's not actually taking water over the bow, it's just (a lot of) spray. I'm guessing the x-bow design won't create won't create much spray, and it probably channels the water to the sides before it reaches the top.
Video of USS Kitty Hawk taking water over the bow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK9myqHOMfE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK9myqHOMfE)
Russian Navy's parking lot. If i'm not mistaken, the two ships pictures are par of Udaloy-class destroyers.Absolutely hnnggh.
The ship in the background looks likes a Whiskey-Class Submarine. Not sure if the Class is right from that view. It has deck gun on the bloody thing!The submarine is the Stalinets-Class submarine S-56 (see pennant on the sail), active from 1941 to 1955 and turned into a museum in the mid 70s.
That pic looks like it's just begging to have a wave climb the bow and do bad things to the helicopter deck and pilot house windows. I'd be willing to bet that the design would minimize that, though.
The submarine is the Stalinets-Class submarine S-56 (see pennant on the sail), active from 1941 to 1955 and turned into a museum in the mid 70s.
P.S.: She was originally built in Leningrad from '36 to '38, then knocked down and shipped across land to be reassembled in Vladivostok, commissioning in '41, then in '42 made her way back to the Northern Fleet by way of the Panama Canal. She transferred back to Vladivostok through the Northern Sea Route in '54, where she's been since then.
Russian Navy's parking lot. If i'm not mistaken, the two ships pictures are par of Udaloy-class destroyers.And here is the other side of the shot. I don't know when the above is dated, but this one was (allegedly) taken on the 25th of December, on the commissioning of 335, the Steregushchy Class corvette Gromkiy.
(https://cdn5.img.sputniknews.com/images/105949/09/1059490931.jpg)
How does the 01A compare to the Q.E.?I'm just former enlisted guy who follows Navy related development closely. So this is my point of view.
I'm just former enlisted guy who follows Navy related development closely. So this is my point of view.
She has a fixed wing compliment, using no Catapult, but using up fuel to launch from the ramp. Its still a lot of still fixed wing aircraft being kicked off the deck. CV-17 is 55,000 tons unloaded, while QE is 65,000 tons unloaded. While QE II is heavier ship, her air compliment are more helicopter than fixed wing. Type 01A has same rough number of aircraft as QE, again they are fixed wing with longer ranges than QE could hope for. It's unclear from what I read since both ships are virtually new, still in their respected sea trials what their actual air compliment suppose to be made of, however it's suspected Type 01A aka CV-17 is suppose to have 32 Shenyang J-15 (Copied Su-33) Jet Fighters. I don't think the British will be carrying alot F-35Bs for cost reasons, so its likely there will be roughly squadron of 6-8 of them on board with rest mix of Helicopters and Attack Helicopters. I would imagine that if in a pinch, the QE could carry more Jet fighters in time of war. How many safely is uncleared, it's not published publicly.
The PLAN has a much larger surface fleet to flesh out the carrier's battlegroup. With 6 Type 45 Destroyers and 13 Type 23 frigates, it looks like the RN would be hard pressed to fill out two full CVBGs once your account for ships operating independently, undergoing overhaul, escorting amphibs, etc.Most any event calling for both QE and POW to operate will not have any RN ships operating independently, it'll be a all hands on deck effort similar to 1982.
given the hull number i'm personally not convinced that is the 1878 Thornycroft design though..The 33m type that No 63 belongs to were built at Normand between 1882 and 1885 with 15 units built (No 60 to 74), based on a prototype submitted by Normand as an alternative to the Thornycroft prototype series. The first six - including No 63 - were built with a single 15-inch torpedo tube, the last nine with a ram bow and 14-inch torpedo tube.
while nothing i've found on it says specifically, i'd guess it probably started out as a 1st or 2nd class ship (for use in fleet actions or coastal defense)The "1st"/"2nd" effectively only denotes the generation for French torpedo boats of that time.
Torpedo boat? Looks pretty sub-ish to me though it does have a rear facing funnel?
Dutch Holland-class OPV, what a beautLike Daryk said that's overkill. You would want to bring such launcher IF the pirate/insurgent have tougher boats.
Could adding a Marlet or Hellfire type missile launcher improve its usefulness against pirates/suicide boats, or is it overspec?
Guns give you all kinds of options that missiles don't. Aside from the ammunition being vastly cheaper, you can stop shooting before they're totally destroyed. You generally don't do "disabling fire" with missiles.
@kato - can RAM target boats?That's what the HAS mode is for - "Helicopter/Aircraft/Surface" targeting. It basically loads a set of alternative target patterns for the IIR seeker which include typical emission patterns of small boats. Any RAM missile from Block 1 onward can be modified to HAS mode; don't know if there's still any Block 0 around anywhere, really doubt it (the German ones reached their shelf life around 2013 and were discarded in live-fire trials over several annual deployments in South Africa).
Or is it totally unnecessary to involve an OPV in that kind of tasking?The main role of the Hollands is counter-narco patrol and general naval presence in the Carribean, to give it a scope.
That's what the HAS mode is for - "Helicopter/Aircraft/Surface" targeting. It basically loads a set of alternative target patterns for the IIR seeker which include typical emission patterns of small boats. Any RAM missile from Block 1 onward can be modified to HAS mode; don't know if there's still any Block 0 around anywhere, really doubt it (the German ones reached their shelf life around 2013 and were discarded in live-fire trials over several annual deployments in South Africa).Why doesn't everyone ditch Phalanx for RAM/SeaRAM? Cost? (Those are million-dollar/shot weapons I understand)
The main role of the Hollands is counter-narco patrol and general naval presence in the Carribean, to give it a scope.
Why doesn't everyone ditch Phalanx for RAM/SeaRAM? Cost? (Those are million-dollar/shot weapons I understand)
Re: Hollands - See, if I were a narco, and I go to the trouble of building fast submersibles even, or say the nascent local chapter of the Global Liberation Army or whatever terrorist org flavour of the year, I might even find it worthwhile to invest in a black market TOW or Konkurs and make drug interdiction or sea policing that much more exciting, eh? So wouldn't it be nice to have something that can quickly, reliably and precisely erase anybody who tried doing that...?
I dunno, maybe I'm thinking too Clive Owen/Tom Clancy for the real world. But hey I thought those narco subs were purely fictional too. Whoda thunk huh?
If you're talking about a threat like Iran's FACs and their ASMs, then a: hell yes give me SEARAM and b: wait why am I taking a coastal patrol/antismuggler ship into a warzone.
all kinds of ships tend to be drafted in a war, including civvy ships
b: wait why am I taking a coastal patrol/antismuggler ship into a warzone.
all kinds of ships tend to be drafted in a war, including civvy ships
an OPV might be used to nursemaid said civvy auxiliaries in a relatively low-threat environment
it would be nice if it can do something useful against, say, 5 or 6 speedboats with ATGM teams on board, or in light of modern developments, 5 or 6 remotely-controlled speedboats packed with explosives
just spitballin' yeah...
...Very true all.
Speedboats or jetskis with RPGs etc are only a danger in a strict littoral environment. Anything beyond sight of the shore they tend to lose their capacity, as they are almost totally dependent on third party guidance, usually from the shore.
...
We tend to see them as a larger threat than they really are because western nations have a tendency to worry about "The War" as opposed to "A War", a dangerous tendency which leaves us woefully unprepared for future conflicts.
...
Why doesn't everyone ditch Phalanx for RAM/SeaRAM? Cost? (Those are million-dollar/shot weapons I understand)Industry-politics related in my opinion. General Dynamics wants their share.
Anything beyond sight of the shore they tend to lose their capacity, as they are almost totally dependent on third party guidance, usually from the shore.Which is why the defense suite also includes a hefty dose of ECM systems.
Many gun system that use 76mm are quite capable of engaging air targets including missiles with it.
76mm main gun is probably overkill and you may have trouble getting rounds on target against fast and maneuverable targets like skidoos with a RPG-7 toting crewman but
without adding anything to their, essentially, police capabilities.
Germany is buying three of those from Lürssen - for its police, not its navy.
French training ship slash helicopter cruiser Jeanne d'Arc.
(https://abload.de/img/jeanne2k9c5a.jpg)
Decommissioned in 2010, being dismantled since ca 2014 - the picture is from then. Current designation is "Hull Q860". Oddly she still carries both her remaining 100mm turrets and the launch containers for her six Exocets, guess the Navy sends those to the scrappers too nowadays.
In peacetime role she'd sail around Africa with 150 cadets onboard - on top of her crew of another 480. In wartime role she'd carry eight heavy helos equipped for ASW, OTH targeting of her Exocets and for heavy interdiction (those things carried 20mm door guns).
French training ship slash helicopter cruiser Jeanne d'Arc.Which helos did she carry?
(https://abload.de/img/jeanne2k9c5a.jpg)
Decommissioned in 2010, being dismantled since ca 2014 - the picture is from then. Current designation is "Hull Q860". Oddly she still carries both her remaining 100mm turrets and the launch containers for her six Exocets, guess the Navy sends those to the scrappers too nowadays.
In peacetime role she'd sail around Africa with 150 cadets onboard - on top of her crew of another 480. In wartime role she'd carry eight heavy helos equipped for ASW, OTH targeting of her Exocets and for heavy interdiction (those things carried 20mm door guns).
Which helos did she carry?Super Frelon for ASW/transport in wartime. Think Sea King, but 30% bigger.
Super Frelon for ASW/transport in wartime. Think Sea King, but 30% bigger.WOW 8) BIG guys!
...
The helicopters carried 4 Mk44 torpedos
...
It's a colorized version of a picture from the official Imperial War Museum (UK).It looks to be listing at 10-15 degrees in that picture.
The picture is always a bit suspicious as to its exact timing because Hipper was scuttled in that drydock on May 2nd (before the picture was supposedly taken, British troops arrived May 4th) and in other pictures lays far deeper with a very notable cant.
That was pretty common for Japanese ships, using extra padding around the bridge and flag facilities to protect from splinters and such. The carriers at Midway had the crew's bedrolls rolled and stuffed against the island structures, for example. (Akagi is shown here)(
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/3b/2d/073b2d472b3f65559534e387722c55ad.jpg)
....did they also have daily grog rations, issue a dozen lashes and fire chain shot at the enemy?
the European nobility tended to have problems from not eating enough vegetables
one of the few instances of a society in which the upper class were more prone to a dietary deficiency condition than the lower class.
the European nobility tended to have problems from not eating enough vegetables
and IIRC it wasn't a "centuries-old" problem, wasn't it only after the Meiji restoration that the Japanese nobility could afford to eat exclusively polished rice and so encounter this remarkable phenomenon?
Are those torpedo nets I see rigged on those grand ladies?
Not to the same extent, since there wasn't the same focus on eating a single food to the exclusion of everything else.For some time it was however a sign of wealth to have bad teeth. Only rich persons could afford sugar! :D
The article I read on the subject claimed it was a condition that was known in Japan since the 16th or 17th century, but it became far more widespread during the Meiji period as polished rice became more readily available.The one I read said this was one of the clues to the cause. Once machines made white rice affordable the "disease" spread outside the nobility and some people started drawing the correct conclusions.
Are those torpedo nets I see rigged on those grand ladies?Those wood poles are intended for boats the crew uses to ferry to ship to shore. The nets are used sometimes for the crew climb up and on. If look look at the center Battleship closely u can see crew climbing down on to boat. Not every port bavk then had dredged harbors or acquit pier room for those battlewagons.
Surely there was some sort of passage way from one part to another
What dig is, the Chinese may show how repairing a ship like her is done. As it stands, their more experts repairing Kuznetsov-Class Aircraft Carriers than Russians are.
Kuznetsov in better days.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6PlIQZL6HMY/Urg-dhydT9I/AAAAAAAADU0/eyiJocXKYhU/s1600/kuznetsov14.jpg)
I don't think that's Kuznetsov. The helicopter flying near the bow looks like a Harbin Z-9.Ack, i think your right. I missed the obvious clues it's Russian ship.
Edit: On second though (and looking a some pics of the Kuznetsov and Liaoning) I guess that does look like Kuznetsov.
(https://i.imgur.com/yGaLHcO.jpg)
Not sure if this goes here or in the plane post.
and there's a nice gallery of the Soviet WiGE stuff here - https://imgur.com/gallery/ezf3Pkt
Crew members monitor radar screens in the combat information center aboard the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes (CG-49), 1 January 1988
It may be a mock up but it looks more like an airport control tower than a warship.
(https://i.redd.it/cj2jjwhnnp921.png)
Nothing looks more French than this French Pre-dreadnought Battleship the Carnot.
That is so ridiculous it is amazing
Has the recent British documentary about a deployment aboard a Type 45 destroyer been shown on the other side of the Atlantic yet?
They had cameras in the CIC or Ops Room or whatever it is best called when the ship got buzzed by 17 Russian fighters in the Black Sea
Marauder, one thing to remember for the Tico class's CIC you are going to get crowded. What you are seeing- or they are letting the picture be taken of- is probably some low level exercise or ops near friendly territory. When its show time, you are going to have officers hanging out behind the operators looking at the screens. The TF screen commander is going to be on that ship and will be managing the screen from that CIC.
As an ORS, I'd be telling most of those officers to take a hike. But then again, RAN Ops Rooms don't work the same way as USN CICs do. We still have plenty of officers in our Ops room, but if I find them bugging my operators, they'd better back off right quick. My operators are professionals who've been using those consoles for years, the most console experienced officer will likely not have anywhere near as much time on console.
But now I just hide in the corner, in my own little kingdom and let the other guys deal with that. :)
Sure, there should be a general plot board that updates from various stations. But that will not keep some O that 'needs' to know the details from standing behind the enlisted manning the station.Yeah, being legally responsible for things is inconvenient at times. I'm certain the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse would have Incompentent/Nosey/Annoying Officer but the short titles worked better. Tough luck, that.
Yeah, being legally responsible for things is inconvenient at times. I'm certain the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse would have Incompentent/Nosey/Annoying Officer but the short titles worked better. Tough luck, that.
Enterprise is a bit special . . . I think they will keep up the Nimitz naming tradition, before that they did not have a real system for the carriers that really carried forward.
Hancock Raleigh Randolph Warren Washington Effingham Montgomery Trumbull Providence Virginia Boston Congress Delaware | John Hancock (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/h/hancock-ii.html) Sir Walter Raleigh/The capital of North Carolina (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/r/raleigh-i.html)* Peyton Randolph (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/r/randolph-i.html) Joseph Warren (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/w/warren-ii.html) George Washington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Washington_(1776_frigate)) Thomas Howard, 3rd Earl of Effingham (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/e/effingham.html) Richard Montgomery (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/montgomery-i.html) Jonathan Trumbull (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/t/trumbull-ii.html) The capital of Rhode Island (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/p/providence-ii.html) The colony/state (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/v/virginia-i.html) The city in MA (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/b/boston-ii.html) The Second Continental Congress (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/c/congress-ii.html) The river or colony (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/d/delaware-i.html) |
I prefer the ones with a bit of historical significance:Throw in Essex and Bon Homme Richard, as weel
USS Enterprise
USS Ranger
USS Hornet
USS Yorktown
USS Lexington
USS Ticonderoga
USS Kitty Hawk
Throw in Essex and Bon Homme Richard, as weel
From what I can see in the image, that appears to be USS George Washington (CVN-73) as there is a 73 on the side of the island.
USS George Washington (it would be much easier if it was just called USS Washington) went into drydock for mid-life refueling in 2017, so the image must be from before then.
JS Hyūga (DDH-181) was commissioned into service in 2009, so the image can be no older than 2009.
Wikipedia has another image of JS Hyūga and USS George Washington sailing in formation in 2013 after a joint exercise but the lighting and aircraft on deck are completely different.
Man, the Independence class looks WEIRD from above! :D
Looks like a squished duck
Always loved the Pre 1900's French ships, they look like they belong in a Studio Ghibli movie and they did base a lot of their military equipment on French designs from the period.Miyazaki loves the look too.
who takes responsibility for any errors?
(https://dougnyren.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/russia-submarine-on-beach.jpg?w=584)
If this picture is to be, but apparently this was part of that very same ship or one by the same name. I don't know if it's fake, its alleged to have been found in an abandoned Russian base.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=50325)
I wonder what ship they used for that bow. It doesn't match any of the amphibious assault ships listed on Wikipedia, maybe it was from a troop transport or cargo ship?
The Sea Shadow before she was scrapped, while in state of...mothballs?Ben Rich's book has an interesting chapter relating to the Sea Shadow, and dealing with the Navy.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/09/article-2001303-0C79FE1200000578-296_634x415.jpg)
huh, whose ship was that? I thought it was a Pop Mechanics wishlist and appeared in a Bond flick as the bad guy mcguffin.It is an actual ship, US Navy stealth testbed, once hailed as the future of naval ship design
Which is why a lookalike appears in Tomorrow Never Dies*, where it sinks a Royal Navy Type 23 with an honest-to-goodness chainsaw torpedo, because Bond flicks just has to shoehorn in GI Joe ludicrosity alongside the legit cutting edge military tech
Given the wacky stuff started appearing in Bond in the early 80s, I'd say it was GI Joe that copied Bond-film ludicrosity.
Pfffffffffft. Moonraker was based on a true story. ;D
Pfffffffffft. Moonraker wasbased ona true story. ;D
Also on the topic of Sea Shadow, think of her as the Have Blue of warships - the thing that proved stealth worked for ships, and was (pun intended) a sea change in the way warships were designed. Look at the design paradigm prior to her development in the late 1970s and construction in 1984, and how things evolved since then. It also helped with wake reduction and other technologies beyond radar stealth, despite not being the primary purpose.that was literally what she was. a proof of concept test model like have-blue. only unlike haveblue, it never got picked up for a full production model (due to reasons regarding internal navy attitudes that would run afoul of rule 4) though the principles it pioneered have found their way into most modern ships to various degrees.
that was literally what she was. a proof of concept test model like have-blue. only unlike haveblue, it never got picked up for a full production model (due to reasons regarding internal navy attitudes that would run afoul of rule 4) though the principles it pioneered have found their way into most modern ships to various degrees.It's doubtful an unarmed, 4-crew, 15-knot ship could contribute much to the Navy, stealth or no.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/The_Surrender_of_the_German_High_Seas_Fleet%2C_November_1918_Q19296.jpg)
Monitor HMS Lord Clive and her unusual armament at the surrender of the German High Seas Fleet in late 1918. The most notable feature is the single 18" gun aft, which is in a fixed-to-starboard mounting (it could be aimed to some extent fore and aft, but the actual gun shield was fixed to starboard). Forward are a pair of 12" guns in the turret, and visible below the bridge are 6" secondary guns.
as it turned out, Sea Shadow was a bit too stealthy.. it generated a return smaller than that of the noise from the waves on the surface, so a radar set properly would be able to find it as an empty point in the noise.
adline passed.
It's doubtful an unarmed, 4-crew, 15-knot ship could contribute much to the Navy, stealth or no.
I wonder how much a displacement this thing would get when they fired that 18incher, the Iowas fired broadsides and physically moved the ship sideways little bit.
If my memory serves me correctly, back in WWI the wireless radio sets were not really small enough to be aircraft mountableBritish, French and German artilllery spotter aircraft and night bombers had wireless radio transmitters in various forms by late 1916/early 1917, earlier on - since late 1914/early 1915 - typically transmitting with wireless telegraphs in morse code instead.
Speaking of Radar, there the old USS Spinax SS-489. She was launched in 1946, and was converted to server as a Radar Picket Submarine in late 1940s. She was experiment in seeing if Radar picket submarines would be useful, she was more extensively modified with half dozen submarines.
(https://ussnautilus.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/SSRSPIN.gif)
She by the 1960s was converted back to regular submarine and eventually retired & scrapped in 1972 when refits were not feasible.
What books that? And I loved the look of the Sea Shadow, a useful tesbed for sure.Skunk Works (https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003) by Ben Rich and Leo Janos
as it turned out, Sea Shadow was a bit too stealthy.. it generated a return smaller than that of the noise from the waves on the surface, so a radar set properly would be able to find it as an empty point in the noise.
This, Sea Shadow was purely R&D, I'm going to guess that she didn't have a lot of space and weight capacity for weaponry, and was too slow for anything the USN really wanted her for. Not to mention that she was likely quite observable on sonar, which is much harder to hide from than radar.The diesel engines were up in the main body, and the pontoons had electric motors. Not saying that turns this thing into the Red October, but I have to imagine there are worse starting points.
I'd also suggest that with her superstructure shape means she's going to dig that bow into a serious wave pretty damn hard. Buoyancy will try to push it upwards, while the shape going through the water is going to push it down, and I can't imagine something slapped together as a rough prototype is built for that kind of impact and stress. She'd turn into a stealth submarine pretty quick, I fear.Stealth shapes and ship shapes seem even more incompatible than stealth shapes and airplanes! I've dug no deeper than wiki, but the Tumblehome hull of the Zumwalt has some stability issues.
Geez, you'd hate a posting to that sub. Imagine a sub having to use radar? :DShe and her sisters were more of a replacement for the radar picket destroyers in World War II, that took a beating at Okinawa, by role. The idea was that if the planes were come straight at her, she could submerge and hide. Ned Beach's Triton (SSRN-586) was the ultimate expression of that idea, but the deployment of the E-1 Tracer and E-2A Hawkeye gave far better radar coverage in a better platform.
She and her sisters were more of a replacement for the radar picket destroyers in World War II, that took a beating at Okinawa, by role. The idea was that if the planes were come straight at her, she could submerge and hide. Ned Beach's Triton (SSRN-586) was the ultimate expression of that idea, but the deployment of the E-1 Tracer and E-2A Hawkeye gave far better radar coverage in a better platform.
Also, a snorkel equipped Tench class submarine is closer to a surface torpedo boat that can dive rather than a true submarine.
The first Japanese battleship lost in WWII, Hiei, has been found. As seems to always be the case, it's courtesy of the late Paul Allen's RV Petrel.
https://news.usni.org/2019/02/06/40942 (https://news.usni.org/2019/02/06/40942)
I wonder how much of Ironbottom Sound is mapped by now, with the wrecks located.Technically she wasn't sunk in Ironbottom Sound. She was crippled and was steaming away in the Slot until the US warplanes engaged her.
The radar pickets also played a role in terms of terminal guidance for early cruise missiles like the Mace and Regulus, that needed command direction.Not as much as you'd think. Topside, Fleet Boats had a deck casing that's a free flood area. It's like a back yard deck where there's wood mounted with a gap. It's far enough up the gear could easily fold into the deck and not impact the pressure hull. The holes I'd be worried about would be the cable penetrations into the CIC. Small holes are enough to start big leaks under pressure.
But yes, the idea of the holes in the hull to tuck those dishes away ...
W.
By December 1941 Shanghai (aside from the International Settlement and French Concession), had been occupied by Japan's land forces and there was a large buildup of Japanese naval forces in the area. At around 4:20am local time on 8 December 1941 news of the attack on Pearl Harbor, a few hours earlier, began filtering through to Shanghai. HMS Peterel was notified of the attack by Commander Kennedy from the British Consulate and the ship was called to battle stations.
Soon after the news of the attack on Pearl Harbor reached Shanghai, Japanese marines boarded the US Navy river gunboat, USS Wake. She surrendered without a shot being fired (the only US Navy ship to surrender during World War II). The Japanese later commissioned her into their navy as the Tatara and subsequently gave her to its puppet Reorganized National Government of China based in Nanjing.
Although Japan had not declared war on Great Britain, Japanese marines also boarded the Peterel to demand her surrender. Polkinghorn attempted to stall for time, in order for the demolition fuses to be lit and the code books to be passed down a special chute in order to be burned in the boiler room. When his attempts failed, Polkinghorn told them to "Get off my bloody ship!" The Japanese disembarked and almost immediately the Japanese cruiser Izumo, the accompanying gunboat Toba and Japanese shore batteries in the French Concession opened fire at almost point-blank range. Despite being outnumbered and hopelessly outgunned, the Royal Navy crew of HMS Peterel returned fire, using small arms and the deck-mounted Lewis machine guns (the breechblocks from her 3-inch guns having been removed and taken to the Royal Navy dockyard in Hong Kong). The Royal Navy crew inflicted several casualties on the Japanese before Peterel capsized and drifted from its mooring under heavy fire. The Japanese machine gunned both the surviving Royal Navy and locally recruited Chinese crewmen in the water.
Of the British crew of 22, 18 were on board Peterel at the time of the attack. Six of them were killed by the Japanese; they have no known graves and it is unclear whether their bodies were recovered from the water. 12 Royal Navy crew survived: some sought refuge on a neutral Panamanian-registered merchant vessel, the SS Marizion. In violation of international law, the Japanese boarded the ship and took the survivors prisoner. The number of casualties suffered by the locally recruited non-combatant Chinese crew and the fate of any survivors at the hands of the Japanese is unknown (under a directive ratified on 5 August 1937 by Emperor Hirohito, the Japanese removed the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners by its military).
The Royal Navy survivors from HMS Peterel (including Polkinghorn) were moved amongst the Hongchew, Kiang Wang and Woosung internment camps in China. Ongoing supplies received from the British Residents Association (Shanghai) and the International Red Cross were critical to the survival of those interned. On 9 May 1945 the inmates at Kiang Wang were moved to camps in Japan itself.
Three of the crew of HMS Peterel were onshore during the Japanese attack; two were captured but the third (PO Telegraphist James Cuming) remained at large in Shanghai for the duration of the war, working for a Sino-American spy ring. The Lonely Battle, an account of Cuming's tale, was written by Desmond Wettern in 1960.
Polkinghorn survived his three years and nine months in captivity. He was awarded a gallantry medal, the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC), for his actions in Shanghai. The citation (published in The London Gazette on 23 October 1945) reads: "For great courage, determination and tenacity in fighting his ship, HMS Peterel, when attacked by overwhelming Japanese forces at Shanghai on 8th December 1941".
That sonar picture seems to show that she reached the ground backwards. You can see the shadow of the conning tower on the starboard side of the ship, which means the bow is pointing "up" in that picture. There's a buildup of seafloor material at the stern, and a clear trail through the seafloor at the bow. Interesting situation, especially as she doesn't show any noticeable list.
That trail is most likely caused by oceanic currents, no way a furrow dragged by a ship will remain observable after 70 years, the ocean floor is a far more dynamic environment than land.
Currents would also explain why there's a buildup around the stern, as the current would be slowed and deposit its silt there, when it worked its way around the ship.
I thought the ocean liked to eat wood over the years. That flight deck looks like in some good shape.In warmer water. Generally shallower waters.
Canon de 27cm Mle 1870
Used in battleships and coast defenses c.1870~1918.
274mm caliber 216kg shells, 434m/s muzzle velocity giving it an estimated 300mm of penetration in wrought iron armor at combat range, breech-loading single shot.
Picture taken c.1885 by Gustave Bourgain onboard a Colbert-class French ironclad, below the center battery.
Note the boarding weapons on racks on the left side of the picture, including cutlasses and Lefaucheux Mle1858 revolvers. The Colbert-class ironclads were also armed with, beside a variety of other naval guns, more than a dozen Hotchkiss 37mm revolving cannons, four 356mm torpedo tubes and a ram.
Whish we had a TRO of possible Ironclad designs... or more water-based vessels to use in BT for our maps and such...
I mean a Monitor armed with twin LGR would be nice, or even a LB-X version... hell I'd settle for a SRT fast boat akin to the PT's of WWII other than the Sea Skimmer.
Something like a true naval battle with armed support ship construction.
I've played a few custom non-games where a Monitor vs. Monitor battle happened, we even modified them. I ran 3x SRM-6 /and a SRT-6 in place of a single 185 mm ChemJet Gun AC/20. Cool part was I won an argument that it was a Demolisher turret on top... which allowed me to just use any of the official Demolisher variants, as long as the tonnage was the same ( 28 + Ammo ).
> CSS Neuse, located in Kinston North Carolina, has a floating working replica of the Ironclad, Neuse II. For tours and such... <
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/CSS_Neuse_Rear_View.jpg/1024px-CSS_Neuse_Rear_View.jpg)
She's aged well... for being buried underwater for more than a century, raised in '63.
TT
I thought the ocean liked to eat wood over the years. That flight deck looks like in some good shape.
I was fascinated by the idea of mounting guns in pairs within quad-turretsActually it was more about subdivising them with a central bulkhead so a hit to the turret wouldn't knocked out all of them.
Actually it was more about subdivising them with a central bulkhead so a hit to the turret wouldn't knocked out all of them.
Live-stream of the salvage operation of the KNM Helge Ingstad - it should be completed in a couple of days. Barring any rapid turn of the weather.Damn, the wonders of technology... what else are people going to livestream next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iynqr4FaJK4
Damn, the wonders of technology... what else are people going to livestream next?
I assume she is a write-off.
I assume she is a write-off.Considering she took flooding all the way into the engine room because of defective shaft seals, and that she's spent how long effectively completely submerged? The corrosion visible on the outside of the hull is going to be endemic to everything inside. If they don't send her to the breakers I'll be shocked.
That's wicked expensive write off.
I assume she is a write-off.
Considering she took flooding all the way into the engine room because of defective shaft seals, and that she's spent how long effectively completely submerged? The corrosion visible on the outside of the hull is going to be endemic to everything inside. If they don't send her to the breakers I'll be shocked.
Oh come now, it's not that bad right?
they are built in limited numbers unless you happen to be one of just three nations currently active.
given the number of Arleigh Burke class being built Lockheed Martin should be able to send over some spares for the SPY-1The Fridtjof Nansen design uses the SPY-1F FARS, which is an export-only model with different electronics (and a smaller antenna). All older F100 use SPY-1D, all current F100 variants - Hobart class and F-105 - use SPY-1D(V) with new processors and different waveform. SPY-1D(V) is no longer built for US destroyers, all Flight III Arleigh Burkes receive SPY-6(V) instead.
Oh come now, it's not that bad right?
Active shipbuilding nations: US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, italy, India, Japan, South Korea...?
Russia never takes a day off from being Russia. ::)When Florida Man just isn't Florida enough.
That would be so weird your just minding your own business and look over while driving on a bridge and a boat crashes into the bridge.
That would be so weird your just minding your own business and look over while driving on a bridge and a boat crashes into the bridge.Ahh...you mean like this?
Oh come now, it's not that bad right?
Active shipbuilding nations: US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, italy, India, Japan, South Korea...?
I wonder if the Fridtjof Nansen class is close enough to the Hobart class still being built to allow an extra order to be "tagged on" for hull construction while either re-using or sourcing new military systems (radar, sonar etc)?
There has to be some sort of advantage to using a relatively widely used ship type (the Navantia F100) and given the number of Arleigh Burke class being built Lockheed Martin should be able to send over some spares for the SPY-1
Or I guess the Norwegians could see if they could tag on an order for a Type 26 or an Arleigh Burke directly?
And how many of those are producing more than 10 of any given class? Warships are built in limited numbers, with a specific class size agreed upon prior to commencement of preparations to construct. You can't just say "Spin us out a couple more can you?" The contract needs to be amended, or another contract signed, and that means the contracted ship builder can more or less name their price.Even 10 ships of one class is a lot these days. Hmm... US, China, Russia (debatably), Canada's Type 26 program (Halifax-class), Australia's Attack-class submarines... I think that's it. A few more programs in the ~8-ship range though.
(Speculating Mode)Yes, things are way more sophisticated and expensive these days. That's just the nature of technology. A modern destroyer is lots more capable than older warships, it can probably win the Battle of Trafalgar all by itself.
Isn't that the problem with modern warship production? You need specialized craftmen, supplies of specialize components etc to suppose this beast? More analog production shipyards kept hot because the ships weren't that sophisticated incomparison to modern warship. Government shipyards maintained vessels, government development outfits had their own design outfits building say naval cannons.
Missile age things start shift to private companies, but cost of the ships and other vehicles gone up.
Isn't that why Burke Class has remained in production for such long time since, there no real room to experiment with new things without terrible cost, such as DDG-1000 program? Half those ships systems aren't fully used since half it was made.
Even 10 ships of one class is a lot these days. Hmm... US, China, Russia (debatably), Canada's Type 26 program (Halifax-class), Australia's Attack-class submarines... I think that's it.German K130 are being expanded to ten, steel has been cut on the next batch of five. There's of course the French-Italian FREMM programme with a planned layout of 20. Or the Italian PPA multi-outfit "light frigate" at 10 units planned. For submarines the Type 212 with 10 in the water will end up at around 18 units with current plans between Germany, Italy and Norway.
(Speculating Mode)
Isn't that the problem with modern warship production? You need specialized craftmen, supplies of specialize components etc to suppose this beast? More analog production shipyards kept hot because the ships weren't that sophisticated incomparison to modern warship. Government shipyards maintained vessels, government development outfits had their own design outfits building say naval cannons.
Missile age things start shift to private companies, but cost of the ships and other vehicles gone up.
Isn't that why Burke Class has remained in production for such long time since, there no real room to experiment with new things without terrible cost, such as DDG-1000 program? Half those ships systems aren't fully used since half it was made.
Here the USS Marblehead CL-12 at launch in Philly in 1922. There wasn't much in hightech going on there!
(By the way, the ship was ordered in Jan 1919. Now hundred years ago!
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/c11/c1113.jpg)
Here a Omaha Class Light Cruiser USS Raleigh (CL-7) in drydock in the 1920s.
(http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/cruisers/photos/raleigh_cl7/1920s_cl7.jpg)
The single bow torpedo tube and the design of anchoring systems combined with the low deck are somewhat irksome. Both point at something like the early 1890s.
My guess would be C-9 Montgomery or one of her class.
I'm pretty sure they weren't building ships like that prior to the civil war...
German K130 are being expanded to ten, steel has been cut on the next batch of five. There's of course the French-Italian FREMM programme with a planned layout of 20. Or the Italian PPA multi-outfit "light frigate" at 10 units planned. For submarines the Type 212 with 10 in the water will end up at around 18 units with current plans between Germany, Italy and Norway.Didn't know about the PPA and K130s, I split up joint procurement.
We'll get higher raw production numbers when the MCM vessels are up for replacement next decade. Benelux is in the market for a dozen, with a 3700t (!) multi-role design likely to win. Germany will order 11 in 2-3 years, with the only design decision so far being "considerably larger than what we have".
BTW, got any good info links for the F126 Saxony class?You mean MKS180? That's still what it runs under officially ;)
You mean MKS180? That's still what it runs under officially ;)Ah okay. So no winning design chosen yet?
Other than the latest cost estimate in September pushing it to 1.5 billion USD per ship... not much. Design requirements are basically identical to F125 with doubled flexdecks (with modules including ASW and MCM) and added AAW at minimum Layer 2 (ESSM Block 2) as well as a ton of growth potential in outfit (which F125 doesn't have, it's at its limit designwise from the start).
Since it's a design-to-cost project we basically only have the government's requirement set and the cost limit, and the companies can do with it what they want. It's by now basically a runoff between two consortiums, GNYK/TKMS and Damen/B+V, to build it.
Some design decisions are being taken outside the project itself, for example industry cooperation agreed upon with Norway as part of a submarine deal included the future standard surface-attack missile that will be mounted on MKS180 - basically an upgraded NSM derivative that will integrate German requirements on navigation and ECCM and have a range of minimum 300 km.
Sachsen/Saxony is the name of the F124 class btw, so MKS180 will not have that name.
Ah okay. So no winning design chosen yet?Nope. They're expected to ask for final offers from bidders sometime around now.
NSMs? not RBS-15?RBS-15 Mk4 apparently never went anywhere useful with Saab, so as part of the recent submarine deal (joint procurement of Type 212CD by Germany and Norway) they agreed as georeturn to buy a NSM derivative from Kongsberg; that one is now planned to be deployed on MKS180, F125 and F124 classes while the K130 will keep their RBS-15 Mk3 - got a stock of that with some shelf life after all. It'll be a derivative since vanilla NSM doesn't fit some of the German requirements (mostly navigation and attack patterns, that's more of a software issue) and because we want a range envelope that at least matches RBS-15 Mk3.
Kidd, makes you wonder just how flammable all that crap in the engine room is, and how small a mistake she is from an inferno...In
Net, it is all nonflammable, we use the good genuine asbestos from Sverdlovsk Oblast. We also take safety seriously, see we have safety rails. ???
InSovietRussia, ship sets you on fire!
The grounded ship reminds me of thing that i happened to witness. I was in the US Navy in early 90s, my ship was redirected to Straits near i think Thailand, where two freighters had collided. It was bad, someone died. they brought his body on. one the cargo ships was cut in half was sinking, while other half was still afloat.
I did take pictures with my old school film camera, have no clue what happened to them. Its was sobering stuff to see at barely 20 years old see people die in collision like that. I was bit fascinated part of the ship was still afloat. I think it was the bow. Stern has sunk of one of the ships.
Gloves and mask on. Didn't bother to fully suit up, that was in the middle of summer. The not so fun part of being in NBC Defense. And yes, that was during this century.It's not just ships. Bovington's got at least one tank (Japanese IIRC, it was in a recent Tank Chat) that's chemically sealed shut because it's full of that stuff; it's on display but they won't even open it for pictures in a controlled environment. Nasty stuff.
I shudder to think what this little bump has done to Norway's defence budget, procurement and force generation cycles...I'd hate to see what 32pdr would do to a modern aluminum vessel
Anyway... French shore battery at the Port of Valletta, Malta, fires at 1 of Nelson's blockading ships, 1800 (colourised)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3rtkzg9z/K4sRZQm.jpg)
I'd hate to see what 32pdr would do to a modern aluminum vesselAt minimum it would leave one heck of a dent
I believe a Carl Gustaf return fire could react to that faster than the chainball from yonder fort...If only because you don't have to swab out the Goose and wait for the powder monkey to stick in the charge before loading and tamping, yeah...
If only because you don't have to swab out the Goose and wait for the powder monkey to stick in the charge before loading and tamping, yeah...
I keep wondering what keeps France from making their second carrier.In a word, cost.
Add CV-7 Wasp to the list of found. Two and a half miles down off Guadalcanal, discovered on the same trip that her sister Hornet was found as well.
https://news.usni.org/2019/03/13/wreckage-of-wwii-era-carrier-wasp-discovered
One of the guys at work put this one up.If the abov ship is USN then it s Pennsylvania class or later (not including Colorado or later classes) due it's two triple-gun turrets. The picture definitely has an interwar ook to it IMO.
Absolutely amazing shot.
I have seen that big clock before on pictures of WW1 era ships. What was that for?
Which carrier? The cape is funny, makes me think of the Jolly Rogs yet you have the Doolittle Raid bombers taking off.
Speaking of which, I am hitting my parent's storage this weekend. I will have to see if I can find the newspaper we found when my grandmother died. My mother and her sisters went through my grandparent's stuff, she was from a typical early 20th century farm family . . . youngest of 9 surviving children. We found all sorts of things they had kept over the years that were interesting bits of history. The one I remember was a newspaper that had been folded up and stored in a shoebox. The paper discussed the success of the Doolittle raid and by how you can help make similar bombing sorties possible by walking instead of driving to save fuel! Turn in your scrap and drive on old tired longer! or something. I think it had a stock picture of the carrier.
Given that it was before the age of the wrist watch being common property, I'm guessing it's so ships company can be on time for watch change.
Brass voice tubes don't work very well above decks, so they need some other mechanism to note the time to sailors on the uppers.
Yep. I noticed that they had a photo of the single cabin (with a nicely turned down bed) but did not include a photo of the bunks.
It's a PR piece, you don't want to turn people off.Does "mess" mean a common sleeping area?
I was talking to a couple of the Army guys I work with today, they asked what it was like living in a mess, I told them it was weird at first, but after a while you come to like it. It still feels a little strange to be sleeping in a queen sized bed.
I think the move to single occupancy cabins and small messes may backfire though, if you didn't hate it, you loved living in larger messes. The move was meant to stimulate retention of personnel, but I think it may just alienate those who truly enjoy that lifestyle, and isolate everyone else.
The mess is where the crew eats.Nightlord talked about
I was talking to a couple of the Army guys I work with today, they asked what it was like living in a mess, I told them it was weird at first, but after a while you come to like it. It still feels a little strange to be sleeping in a queen sized bed.So the eating area doubled as the berthing? I'm guessing there were a couple different facilities so you didn't have people eating lunch while the 3rd shift crew were trying to sleep.
Does "mess" mean a common sleeping area?
The Burkes have almost twice the crew the crew of the Brisbane for not much larger.
Zumwalt must be near palatial, then, 16,000 tons for only 147 crew. Then again, dividing that crew into an officer herd and three watches means you're manning the entire ship, supposedly, with perhaps fifty people in total. That's gotta play merry hell on crew stress...
...though it might not be a consideration that much longer, I guess.
Ahh, range indicator for the gun crews, nice!If I recall correctly, that clock was for the benefit of the OTHER battleships in the line. When they were still planned to operate in a line for Battles.
I keep forgetting that remote controlled guns are a relatively modern development.
If I recall correctly, that clock was for the benefit of the OTHER battleships in the line. When they were still planned to operate in a line for Battles.
The Dreadnought has 12 Misslle tubes, vs the 16 in the Vanguard. The new Columbia SSBN will have only 16 vs the 24 in the Ohios.the missiles are more accurate and can pack more MIRVs in though than when the Vanguards and Ohios were designed, so the reduction in number probably doesn't make much of a difference in strategic firepower. especially since the cold war MAD scenarios are at a lower ebb now and you don't need the same degree of extreme overkill.
Any bets they'll work up a cruise-missile launcher to fit into the tubes, like the Ohio's Multiple-All-Up-Round Canisters?Fairly low. While the most recent batch of Virginia class boats does have missile tubes in the bow for the VLS, the work required to convert a SLBM tube to a SLCM MAC tube is extensive, and requires a fair amount of ballast to be installed.
Any bets they'll work up a cruise-missile launcher to fit into the tubes, like the Ohio's Multiple-All-Up-Round Canisters?
Fairly low. While the most recent batch of Virginia class boats does have missile tubes in the bow for the VLS, the work required to convert a SLBM tube to a SLCM MAC tube is extensive, and requires a fair amount of ballast to be installed.The work for a retrofit is considerable, but if they build the modularity in, it may not be so bad. I know "MAC" means Multiple All-up-round Canister, but what does the "all-up-round" part meant? I'm guessing "round" means it's fitting in the round hole left by the missile, but the rest confuses me.
Here at USS John Warner (SSN-785)'s commissioning, the forward muzzle hatch is open.
(https://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/150801-N-EO381-162.JPG)
The work for a retrofit is considerable, but if they build the modularity in, it may not be so bad. I know "MAC" means Multiple All-up-round Canister, but what does the "all-up-round" part meant? I'm guessing "round" means it's fitting in the round hole left by the missile, but the rest confuses me.An All Up Round (AUR) is a containerized missile that just needs to be plugged into the ship's systems to be ready to launch. Everything (guidance system, electronics, flight control surfaces) is in a capsule and ready to go.
An All Up Round (AUR) is a containerized missile that just needs to be plugged into the ship's systems to be ready to launch. Everything (guidance system, electronics, flight control surfaces) is in a capsule and ready to go.
AND the right drivers already installed! :)
Are the all up rounds for the Tomahawks different between what the SSGNs launch and what the VLS in the 688s use? Or is that "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you" question? ;)As far as I know, yes.
Since we were talking about future of the US Navy.I don't know why a USN version wouldn't have a full length VLS installed, other than as intentional crippleware. As for the design preference, I like the Patrol Frigate variant of the Legend class cutter.
One of the candidates for the design, F-100 Class Aegis Frigates of the Spanish Armada.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/F104_Mendez_N%C3%BA%C3%B1ez.jpg)
Frigate Méndez Núñez.
I think this is has the most potential, it's shame the Frigates will mandated to have 57mm cannon, which i think is lacking for shore-bombardment department. VLS 32-Cells, really good thing. I do wonder if this is winner, will it have deep enough tubes for tomahawks.
I don't know why a USN version wouldn't have a full length VLS installed, other than as intentional crippleware. As for the design preference, I like the Patrol Frigate variant of the Legend class cutter.The Legends were built to commercial standards, which is one chief problem with that design. The militarized version hasn't given much details, i'd image it's classified to quite extent. The Class had alot problems, structural issues which had to be straighten out, there was communication suite defects, but that stuff won't be in the Frigate variant their trying to pitch. The Frigate will be larger, but there still questions about how good it would be. I think the Navy wants existing design that been thought it, verses a something only been used for police actions not blue water military operations such. The militarized version (patrol frigate variant) of the Legend doesn't even exist but on paper.
The militarized version (patrol frigate variant) of the Legend doesn't even exist but on paper.But then again neither do Austal's or Lockheed's upgraded LCS variants. And given all the teething, and current, issues the LCS program has had, I wouldn't rank those two options very highly either. And with the reported flooding issues of the Helge Ingstad, that's a black mark against Navantia. Fincantieri is the only one putting forth an existing design with, seemingly, no baggage.
"Did someone say 'warship of the future'?"
(https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/dimension=970x10000:format=jpg/path/s6f83a957bd4e7300/image/ib426cf58d6f2b10f/version/1499251887/image.jpg)
Jeez that poor guy right down aft...Hope they remember he's out there. Lol (blub blub blub)
I thought they wanted to keep it down in the size department and in with the reduction in size keep the costs down.Neither Fincantieri/Naval Group nor Navantia have smaller ships in their portfolio at all at the moment or for the foreseeable future.
re: the use of active sonar, dancing around rule 4 territory but aren't there rules limiting peacetime use of active pings so not to screw with sea life? Those would go out the window in a combat environment, but that might be one reason why the subhunters aren't having such an easy job of it in peacetime. Or maybe they are, tracking the SSK the whole time, just not telling anyone so that it's hard to judge how good their sonar is after all. "Whoops they got us, shucks, guess our gear's not so hot" snicker snicker.
Oh, definitely.
But a canny diesel operator who gets lucky predicting task force path can sit on the bottom and let the carrier sail overhead. I believe that's the usual way it's done in exercises.
Of course, in wartime YMMV ;) But it's good that the carrier commanders don't get complacent. "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed ..."
W.
Ugh. No, there's no international convention against radiating sonar continuously. A lot of nations have policies regulating it, and outlawing it in their territorial waters, but there is no whole of world law covering it.Yeah, I was thinking of USN peacetime rules for fleet exercises. Nothing international, just "keep the noise down while you're training" sort of thing. I'd read a while ago there was kerfluffle over the use of active sonar and how it would mess with sea life at long distances, but I wasn't sure if there was anything on the books.
I really don't need to be getting into yet another minis game, but sometime I'd love to find a good ruleset for predread wargaming. It'd be absolutely fascinating to see how all those wild designs actually fare against each other.
I want to say the Russians have played around with that sort of weapon since at least the 80s. Part of the idea was that since they had not been able to successfully penetrate a carrier group screen, they would exploit a warhead where 'close' was good enough.
Pretty much, look at how the Soviets solved some of the engineering problems in military applications- they executed a brute force approach.Both sides deployed nuclear torpedoes during the Cold War. On the old Balao subs, the control of the nuclear weapons came from a collar that locked around the circumference of the torpedo. There were two combination locks, one for the captain, one for the weapons officer.
Both sides deployed nuclear torpedoes during the Cold War.And gave the order to fire on USS Randolph during the CMC; look up Vasili Arkhipov.
Actually . . . this girl is the oldest active warship afloat . . .There is a 50,000 acre forest of oak specifically for her in Indiana. An impressive amount of work is put into that ship to keep her afloat.
(https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/182107_10150882467271741_1571062732_n.jpg)
Launched in 1797 and in active service until 1881, later designated a museum ship in 1903. I am not sure if this picture is from '97 or '12 when she is sailing with the US other remaining tall ship the USCGS Eagle.
There is a 50,000 acre forest of oak specifically for her in Indiana. An impressive amount of work is put into that ship to keep her afloat.
Is it that big? I knew there was a bunch of oak trees at Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane (or whatever it's called these days), but I didn't realize it was that size. That's impressive.There are about 150 trees there that are on a list for the Constitution. I would imagine the list changes as newer trees hit the 80+ year age and size they want for the ship. First heard of it in a book "A Most Fortunate Ship." Not something i expected.
I kept wishing they would do one of the other books, but seems its not to be . . .
so.. he bought a frigate, gave it a makeover to look like a pair of dollar store sunglasses, and named it "Yas" of all things? guess all that money buys you protection from criticism.
so.. he bought a frigate, gave it a makeover to look like a pair of dollar store sunglasses, and named it "Yas" of all things? guess all that money buys you protection from criticism.He didn't just buy ONE frigate, he bought TWO decommissioned Frigates.
Those are pretty cool. Anybody have ones for Victorious and/or Ark Royal?
Does anyone know of a good online resource for someone looking to paint Royal Navy warships, specifically as they looked in the WWII Mediterranean?
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/model-of-an-aircraft-carrier-flight-deck-at-the-2017-news-photo-803280594-1554833771.jpg?crop=1xw:1xh;center,top&resize=768:*)
A future "Storm" class carrier from the Russians...which probably isn't going to happen considering Kuznetsov's in worse shape than we thought before. In addition to having half her boilers replaced and the others refurbished, patching the hole in the flight deck, and upgrades to literally everything else...it turns out that she doesn't have propellers. All the props were removed while she was in drydock, and once that went to the bottom...
They've got one drydock left, but it's in the North Pacific. Which means they'd have to TOW the poor thing in a reenactment of the Voyage of the Damned, only passing through Tsushima and continuing on... Scrapping it is becoming more and more popular, according to Popular Mechanics quoting Izvestia.
That Storm class, though, that's a pretty one.
HMS Victorious pretending to be USS Robin in 1943 although the commentary says the colour scheme may be a bit suspect
I am really enjoying [size=78%]http://www.armouredcarriers.com/ (http://www.armouredcarriers.com/)[/size]
Towing large ships is a pretty fraught exercise. Lots of cases of them foundering or breaking the tow line; especially in rough seas. And there's absolutely none of that in the North Pacific!Oh forget the North Pacific. She's in Kola Bay. And because she can't do it under her own power, is unable to transit the Suez.
The alternative for Special K is a tow north of Siberia- with the receding polar ice, that's at least feasible now in the warmer seasons. Still dangerous, but might be easier than hauling her all the way around.
...that said, yeah, with the issues she's had in terms of maintenance, damage, and ineffectiveness (as previously noted, her planes were more useful from land bases than from the ship), it might nto be a bad idea to either scrap her or offer her 'as-is' to anyone interested. Bring your own tugboat, no lowballers, we know what we're selling, no trades. ;)
(And yes, Su-57 is a lovely airplane that makes the F-35 program look like smooth sailing. I'd be surprised if they ever go into large-scale production at this point.)
SINKEX could be a good idea. Without going into Rule 4, I'm sure there's a LOT of powers that would pay good money to know exactly what kind of firepower it takes to sink a modern carrier. See if a bunch of them would go in for a group buy or something.
Classified report leaked to the public: "To sink modern carrier: 1) Drop crane on deck. 2) Watch."
The hell is that?!?Game of Thrones.
Also whats up with the SU-57 program?
The Indians pulled out of the light attack craft project?
My picture is a previous season clip off shore of Casterly Rock- so 2 years old?
How old is that shot?
Random question. Has anybody been to the Cutty Sark in recent years? I'm thinking about putting in a day there in June when i am in London.
Let's take the Game of Thrones stuff to another thread, folks.
SINKEX could be a good idea. Without going into Rule 4, I'm sure there's a LOT of powers that would pay good money to know exactly what kind of firepower it takes to sink a modern carrier. See if a bunch of them would go in for a group buy or something.China would be your number one customer. They're the only ones operating Kuznetsov-types, paying the Russians a few bucks to sink theirs and watch how the ship handles the damage and sinking would pay off handy for their engineering and damage control training alone.
Funny to mention it, that looks like India is trying cut deal with UK to get designs for the Queen Elizabeth II (https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ins-vikramaditya-may-hit-delay-cost-increases-03283/) for their next carrier to server along aside with their exRussian Aircraft Carrier, INS Vikramaditya, which they paid arm and leg for.
(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-AK157_icarri_G_20131114110726.jpg)
Their nearly done building their own ship, the INS Vikrant. I'm not sure what going on with that ship, why it wasn't mentioned.
when in doubt, assume logistical shenannigans. that's always worked for me.
I wish we had sold them Enterprisetoo old, too obsolete, and way too mcguyvered* to modernize. otherwise the navy wouldn't have retired it in the first place.
Do India need nuclear power? They have no nuclear powered ships at the moment and are unlikely to be deploying far far away like the USN, I think it unlikely their carrier would leave the Indian Ocean so range is less of a problem. What I am not 100% sure about is the security of India's oil supplies but realistically they can get it from either the East or the West of them and I am not sure an enemy could cut those supply lines completely.
I thought India had one of their own carriers being built under their own power and then a larger one down the pipeline.
I haven't read INS Vikramaditya being deployed to Japan. I found more recent picture of her, i guess she still doing trials?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Bp7463WwsM4/UBaM3N-xpZI/AAAAAAAAAGc/Im0zuImteEk/s1600/INS_Vikramaditya.jpg)
Older picture of her with exHMS Hermes, which she replaced in service. I hadn't noticed before, but the island/bridge isn't flush with edge of the ship. I wonder what they stash over there.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-usvzMRX6ZMw/Usl1Eo95l9I/AAAAAAAAhNo/OvOjoelz7v4/s1600/INS+Vikramaditya+has+been+accompanied+by+INS+Trikand,+a+Talwar+class+frigate,+INS+Delhi+a+Delhi+class+destroyer+and+INS+Deepak,+the+fleet+tanker.+(5).jpg)
Do India need nuclear power? They have no nuclear powered ships at the moment and are unlikely to be deploying far far away like the USN, I think it unlikely their carrier would leave the Indian Ocean so range is less of a problem. What I am not 100% sure about is the security of India's oil supplies but realistically they can get it from either the East or the West of them and I am not sure an enemy could cut those supply lines completely.they produce a fair bit themselves, just not enough for all their own needs, though with the increased push for developing renewable energy (currently at 1/3rd the total energy suppliers, and rising) that might change some.
Saw in the news the Russians plan to build their first nuke carrier per official sources, slated to start in 2023 'after breaking their only flattop' per headline. Considering the other had a ski jump, I am not sure 'flattop' is a proper word choice. Even if they do build a carrier (doubtful) what fleet is it going to be with?Given the status symbol the Russian Carrier was, odds are better on throwing more resources in pursuing to try make the thing. They didn't have the dock to build one, but i'd imagine they either build yard to build it or out source the carrier hull to the Chinese since they do have the capacity of making their style carrier and use virtually the same planes.
they produce a fair bit themselves, just not enough for all their own needs, though with the increased push for developing renewable energy (currently at 1/3rd the total energy suppliers, and rising) that might change some.
right now nuclear is only worth it if the ship needs global range on a regular basis. (excepting fringe cases like the russian nuclear icebreakers, where the need was performance related). India doesn't make a habit of sending their fleet around the world, so they probably don't need nuclear. they are a nuclear power though and has some experience with nuclear power (22 reactors making about 3.2% of their nations power) so if they wanted it they probably wouldn't have too much trouble running it.
i do suspect that nuclear power on ships will become a bit more common if things like railguns and Laser-CIWS become viable and common technologies.
Well, the other side of it on a carrier is that if your ship doesn't need to carry fuel for itself, it can carry that much more for its planes- in a long campaign, that can mean the difference between having to sail for home on a Monday vs. continuing to provide air cover the rest of the week.
The US Marines are a comin', the US Marines are a come'in! to a British Carrier!Yep that's been known for 2-3 years now. For various reasons the Brits won't have as many F-35s & pilots ready for the deployment so the Marines will send along an air wing. In addition to having more aircraft, the US Marines have been running flight ops aboard ship longer with the F-35 than the Brits.
The aircraft here is a F-35B from the F-35 Integrated Test Force doing test landings on QE.
(https://images03.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2019-05/F35B-hms-queen-elizabeth-1800.jpg?itok=H9Qpy3ta)
Apparently, the US Marines are going have attached squadron F-35Bs on the HMS Queen Elizabeth when it starts actively flying aircraft along side with Royal Air Forces in 2021. It was reported on Military.com. (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/05/07/us-marine-f-35-squadron-will-deploy-british-aircraft-carrier-2021.html)
Ahh the Regulus, I do recall reading somewhere that they were even pushing the Regulus as a kind of 'post delivery' thing for the US mail service at one point. Can't remember where I read that.
Ahh the Regulus, I do recall reading somewhere that they were even pushing the Regulus as a kind of 'post delivery' thing for the US mail service at one point. Can't remember where I read that.
https://postalmuseum.si.edu/collections/object-spotlight/regulus-mail.htmlThis quote from that is a bit intentionally misleading in its wording:
I'm rather impressed, as I did not know the Regulus could land safely.The ability to reuse the test missiles was one of the reasons the Navy selected Regulus over the almost identical Matador. It could also be used as a drone as well.
Even at its best the Regulus was not very accurate at least a half mile off...so I really would love to know the logic on making a missile into a mail delivery vehicle concept.
Shame they retired the LGM-118 (my dad worked on the mockups for that in the design phase) since it'd be the perfect UPS system. "Next day AIR shipping? Pfhah, this'll get your package around the world before you can get a pizza delivered." We actually wrote up a powerpoint presentation on the technology, how independently targeted MIRVs made it ten times more efficient per launch as it could reach multiple clients with a single flight, that weather would not be a hindrance to delivery like it can be for other services, and that insurance was available in the event of package loss due to ABM defenses...that whole "ordering from amazon triggers WW3" problem must have been the major hurdle?
Half a mile's still basically not bad by the standard of the time. Utterly irrelevant considering its nuclear warhead but still not too bad as a mail delivery :D
...half a mile is still better accuracy than the UPS driver I deal with at work. Get that man a Regulus!Well, CEP on the MX series was down to 40 feet, which with a 350kt warhead is "minute of beard-hair" accuracy!
I hope it works. Im not completely sold swapping out the Seawiz out with something from what ive read has killed speeding missile yet.
In a link article, Navy maybe putting railgun on a ship. They've nearly abandoned it due to slow progress. We need the thing but shell development for it seems to work fkr existing guns. As it stands Railgun take 2 minutes to charge and 1 second to fire which seems to be bad rate fire if they want thing to shoot missiles.
The German Navy will be doing another test with a laser weapon for C-RAM purposes mounted operationally on a corvette next year. Testing a competing model this time.
Didn't they design ICBMs in the 70s or 80s with Laser defense in mind? I seem to recall something about how they wanted the MIRV warheads rotating at a certain speed to defend against expected attacking lasers at the time.rotation proved useless against lasers.
Didn't they design ICBMs in the 70s or 80s with Laser defense in mind? I seem to recall something about how they wanted the MIRV warheads rotating at a certain speed to defend against expected attacking lasers at the time.
The Philippine Navy final got their very first missile guided frigate. It's big deal since they've been stuck with left overships, including a Destroyer-Escort they've kept going way past its retirement date.
Considering the Phillipines is a nation of over 7000 islands, you would think they'd have a better navy...they have the navy they can afford, not the one they want.
Damon.
The other question, do they need big ships or a truckload of smaller things like PT boats or coastal-patrol ships to cover the area among the islands? Certainly having a few of the former never hurts, but I'd keep focus on the small hulls myself and keep a "swarm" sort of fleet - wherever you go, there's always a squadron or three nearby.
Answers get into Rule 4 since its going to deal with geo-politics.One of them:
Anyone got a list of WWII ships still actively serving in any of the world's navies?
Vietnam's LST is not much in the limelight
Vietnam has a LST-542 that i think they're keeping for Rule 4 reasons.
Didn't the Brazilians still have one from that era in service?They have a Monitor. She from 1930s.
Vietnam's LST is not much in the limelightI'm thinking of Tran Khanh Du, formerly USS Maricopa County with the USN and LST-938 in WW2 (commissioned in 09/44); Da Nang with the Republic of South Vietnam Navy, from whom she was captured.
IINM you're thinking of Philippines' LST-542, and I'd argue that it's no longer functionally a ship.
While it's normally a breach of forum rules to post links to current active eBay auctions, I will appeal for a waiver in this specific case.
W.
Granted on my initiative and the rule of cool. Unless you're shilling for the seller and think someone on these forums will spring for the ship. Are you shilling? :)
I'd like to see how Amazon will ship it the auction winner. ;)
I'd like to see how Amazon will ship it the auction winner. ;)
I'd like to see how Amazon will ship it the auction winner. ;)
Please tell me some folks got creative with question, especially with it labeled 'used.'only if rebuilt into a spaceship with an all powerful stardrive-cannon.
Q: Is this suitable for fighting off aliens?
Condition: Used.
Can't help but think "For parts or not working" might be more accurate.
Thing is, those wrecks are a great source of non-radioactive iron/steel needed for many scientific instruments. Most of the High Seas Fleet got salvaged for just that reason (most iron production involves blowing massive quantities of air through the mix. Since 1945, this has been a major problem as residual radioactivity will muck up very sensitive instruments.) But now they're protected. And - unlike wrecks in the Pacific - no illegal dredging is going to disturb these sleeping leviathans.
W.
Granted on my initiative and the rule of cool. Unless you're shilling for the seller and think someone on these forums will spring for the ship. Are you shilling? :)
Auction has been pulled.
Thing is, those wrecks are a great source of non-radioactive iron/steel needed for many scientific instruments. Most of the High Seas Fleet got salvaged for just that reason (most iron production involves blowing massive quantities of air through the mix. Since 1945, this has been a major problem as residual radioactivity will muck up very sensitive instruments.) But now they're protected. And - unlike wrecks in the Pacific - no illegal dredging is going to disturb these sleeping leviathans.
Wow. Because I looked at those auctions yesterday, eBay is sending me emails asking me to make an offer on SMS König. ;D
Same here!
Then is started offering me houseboats as well...
Behold our future, governed by algorithms that are all seeing, omnipresent, and kinda stupid.A Comedian State instead of a Police State? I... I can live with that.
A Comedian State instead of a Police State? I... I can live with that.More like "Brazil" with a laugh track I think.
Amazonian in the UK Amazon Distribution Centre: "You have got to be kidding, you want me to try to bubble wrap that?"
:D
If it's like a normal Amazon shipment it will be in a box that's way too big with not a scrap of packing material.
Like to see someone take that ship off a porch!
To be precise, ex-Amazon PNS Babur.
(https://i.imgur.com/Xhq5qdn.jpg)
https://www.facebook.com/1510752248960251/posts/2447099058658894/
IJN Heavy Cruiser Maya has been found.
I saw a article make its way into a Field Artillery group about how the Navy is thinking about reactivating old Battleships . . . headline did not talk about NGS, but that would be the only reason (unless we are getting some crocodile like aliens invading) and the mission reminded me of the Fighter Mafia's hate for the CAS mission & A-10. I did not look at the article b/c to me it was pretty much click bate- they were retired for a reason; when the Iowa lost a gun they did not repair it so no parts for the future; crew requirements w/dead end tech; bomb/missile magnet; expense to operate vs multiple hulls and more.
I think there is a need for a gun/rocket using hull for NGS for both the Army & Marines, but its just not something the Navy wants.
They used decommissioned 8in artillery barrels. As much as I am in favor of tac usage, its not politically viable. Restoring the battleships are also not tactically or strategically viable
The problem with bombs is pretty simple . . . they are very expensive to deliver for guided munitions, and those penetrators CAN be defeated. Its also a waste on a crew-served weapon pillbox. Naval Gunfire Support is still a reality no matter what the techies in the Navy want, and for delivering HE on target (or FAE for rockets?) gun & rocket artillery is cheaper than air-delivered bombs. A light-cruiser type ship is cheaper to operate than a carrier, and certainly risks fewer people.
Speaking of Cruisers...I randomly ran into this one without a mentioning of which one it is.Could be one of three ships of the Konigsburg class cruisers. Konigsburg, Karlsruhe, or Koln.
Anybody know?
(https://i.imgur.com/8SAwPWF.jpg)
Back to the Pictures...Someone give me the low-down on why the Virginias had so much open deck space and apparently so few weapons.
USS Virginia CGN-38
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mNZgOtJlRC4/VWuOVKTOTwI/AAAAAAAAEW4/svXtfgFilKs/s1600/virginia%2B02.jpg)
Re: NGFS - unless the hypersonic sabot project takes off big and makes big guns viable again...
Oh, ship picture!
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/65450848_2536469263063807_8485266406500204544_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQkCnN1-CHyJoCZs2KEQ5JNLAYu-jhgyouQFNHJt3IFhBlSGedn5yfk5xSJlQWNfebY&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=24aa74f1b64ca0f54cfe714cee5fa881&oe=5DBBCF54)
Look at the sortie cost, loiter time over target, limited number of penetrators carried in inventory, aircraft maintenance requirements, cost per ton of HE, and other metrics . . . today's carriers cannot mount air ops to replicate WWII let alone Vietnam era (hey Newport News & BBs) NGFS.WW2 and even Vietnam era effects per munition expended computations are, I think, a magnitude or so removed from now.
Without going into rocket assist rounds, your looking at a modern 155mm Artillery (snip) being able to put rounds on target 15 or so miles which will be beyond reach of shore based torpedo attacks.Leaving aside the missile story, which is well addressed by cruise missile development... Charlie 6 once had a lot to say about that 15 mile range.
Not sure you are getting my postOh I agree fully with what you say; plus you pointed out the MLRS which is true, I had forgotten that; the Marines recently tested its use from deck-mounted HIMARS and it dovetails nicely with the new Tactical Missile program
the latest guided out to 40 miles for a cost of 90k a pod (15k per), and the ATACMS as I said were supposed to be a mil a bang.I'm surprised if guided MLRS is only 15k per, even a JDAM kit is about twice that
As far as anti-ship missiles . . . yeah, it can happen but just like WWII destroyers and cruisers moved in for NGFS, you develop a doctrine to minimize those risks (like firing DPICM at launch sites at 40 miles to suppress).Just pointing out the standoff range necessary
Btw that rail gun? On a ship its still going to have to get within 5 miles (more like 3.1 at sea level) to fire on a shore based target . . . and IIRC its going to be a vastly different danger close situation.it's not going to be a flat trajectory weapon, but a method of boosting naval artillery range to pretty incredible distances
The current price of GMLRS rockets (basis: March 2019 contract) is 115,000 USD, cost of 1/6th pod included.
As for Vulcano - since it was mentioned - the idea is not about "15 miles inshore from outside the range of torpedos", but about "50 miles inshore from outside territorial waters". It is also subcaliber - basically a unitary 90mm warhead with about the throw weight of a 120mm mortar shell and the volume of fire and sustain of a mortar platoon selectable straight from your artillery network; in direct support of troops always guided precision strike since at 3-minute flight times you can't exactly walk the rounds on target.
There's about twelve inches of clearance on either side of that. And of course there's the length requirement as well, gotta fit between the locks.
The Iowa Class Battleships were the widest ships to ever traverse the canals, with a beam of 108 feet against the canal's width of just 110 feet, leaving only inches to spare on either side.https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/iowa-class-battleships-are-the-widest-ships-to-ever-use-1680273877
Its not just subs, its a rule among all naval vessels afaik- I saw a yellowed piece of paper pinned up on the BB-35 Texas that admonished crew members that if the ship was hit, a crewman's best chance to save his buddies was to save the ship.
For the Panama Canal, they are under tow afaik (some of the old black & white photos posted earlier on what refit it was with US BBs showed tows) since it reduces their wakes somewhat. Ship wakes cause erosion on the Lake and IIRC they have had to take steps over the decades to combat that to keep things clear.
Apparently in the western Pacific . . .
(https://pressfrom.info/upload/images/real/2019/07/03/pentagon-says-china-missile-test-in-south-china-sea-disturbing__182765_.jpg?content=1)
I did not know battleships were this fat.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cCT33x12/VhYDZKJ.jpg)
Not much details have come out, but since no one spoke of it. There was fire on Monday aboard a secretive Russian Nuclear-Submarine, Losharik (AS-12) as reported on USNI's news section. (https://news.usni.org/2019/07/02/14-sailors-die-on-secretive-russian-nuclear-submarine) 14 sailors lost their lives when fire happened, they managed to put the fires and the ship was towed back to the Northern Fleet navalbase. Terrible thing they died, but they saved their fellow shipmates, my heart goes out to their families.
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Z80RR.jpg)
The ship was among the secret/hushup leftovers from the Cold War Era, but they're still in use. The Losharik was meant for Special Ops, though what kind research it was doing we may not know. It was said it was originally intended to tap into communication cables that lay below on the ocean bottom, which would make sense. More recently, the ship was reported doing research in the Arctic Ocean. What is interesting to me, this is a 2,000 ton nuclear submarine that uses a modified Delta-III Stretched SSBN to act as the mothership to it and apparently other small SSNs. I had heard of the Delta III Stretch submarine, but like anyone with publicly available information, not clarify why it was stretched.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=53333)
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=53331)
Its not just subs, its a rule among all naval vessels afaik- I saw a yellowed piece of paper pinned up on the BB-35 Texas that admonished crew members that if the ship was hit, a crewman's best chance to save his buddies was to save the ship.
For the Panama Canal, they are under tow afaik (some of the old black & white photos posted earlier on what refit it was with US BBs showed tows) since it reduces their wakes somewhat. Ship wakes cause erosion on the Lake and IIRC they have had to take steps over the decades to combat that to keep things clear.
The ship was among the secret/hushup leftovers from the Cold War Era, but they're still in use. The Losharik was meant for Special Ops, though what kind research it was doing we may not know. It was said it was originally intended to tap into communication cables that lay below on the ocean bottom, which would make sense. More recently, the ship was reported doing research in the Arctic Ocean. What is interesting to me, this is a 2,000 ton nuclear submarine that uses a modified Delta-III Stretched SSBN to act as the mothership to it and apparently other small SSNs. I had heard of the Delta III Stretch submarine, but like anyone with publicly available information, not clarify why it was stretched.
Are these the ones with treads to putter around the seafloor, as the swedes reported around those cables and sensors as late as the 80s?No, it's newer, doesn't have treads. Does have skids though.
(http://www.hisutton.com/images/WP-18Weaps.jpg)
(http://www.hisutton.com/images/WP18_air.jpg)
http://www.hisutton.com/WP-18%20Tactical%20Strike%20Craft.html
The Rabid Foxes, DEST, Loki, and the Death Commandos would like 50 each!
blasting the "Miami Vice" soundtrack probably ruins the surprise.
In
You can always confuse them by playing other songs
One I found online looks coolSuddenly I want to really screw with sonar techs. Get a really good sound system with a very heavily sound-insulated generator up on the deck away from the water, and pootle around pumping out a nice long loop of a diesel submarine's engine.
Suddenly I want to really screw with sonar techs. Get a really good sound system with a very heavily sound-insulated generator up on the deck away from the water, and pootle around pumping out a nice long loop of a diesel submarine's engine.Congratulations, it existed and was called MOSS.
Masks the distinctive sound signature on sonar of the engines
You can always confuse them by playing other songs, perhaps something from HMS Pinafore
Congratulations, it existed and was called MOSS.Didn't MOSS also have the bubble generators to make a nice big water-air boundary to bounce active sonar off of? Combine that with Prarie/Masker for your main ships, it probably did well.
InSoviet Russiamusic plays you!
Suddenly I want to really screw with sonar techs. Get a really good sound system with a very heavily sound-insulated generator up on the deck away from the water, and pootle around pumping out a nice long loop of a diesel submarine's engine.
I wonder what will happen to the reactor, as the French do not have a location like Idaho or Siberia to store old reactors.Actually they do. Homet.
(https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Last-Cruise-for-French-Rubis-class-SSN-Saphir-Suffren-About-to-Take-Over-1.jpg)
France's Rubis-Class Attack Submarine, FS Saphir, has been arrived to be decommissioned. She first of her class of Nuclear Attack Submarines to be retired to make way for the new Suffren-Class Attack Boats.
Can one be named the Succotash? Just for the name alone.
Those moments when you wish horror movies and the results of defiling graves were real...
Not... not much I can say.BEST... BREAKAWAY SONG... EVER!!! :thumbsup:
https://twitter.com/Intrepid_Sailor/status/1147376424476655617
Read the story . . . 100 times this . . .I hope they capture the thugs. This problem of finding all these wrecks. There jerks out there will use data to abuse it.
But I am a history buff, and so sadly this is not a new thing where people tear up relics of the past . . . think of the Roman ruins that were 'mined' for structures in the Middle Ages.
But I am a history buff, and so sadly this is not a new thing where people tear up relics of the past . . . think of the Roman ruins that were 'mined' for structures in the Middle Ages.To be fair, the Roman ruins weren't any more interesting to the medieval folks than the old, run down city block that got leveled for redevelopment. Defiling war graves for profit in the 21st century? Satan's digging an exploratory trench for something under Cocytus. (And likely making a special floaty chair for me in Styx)
To be fair, the Roman ruins weren't any more interesting to the medieval folks than the old, run down city block that got leveled for redevelopment.You historically don't need that much time difference. We have medieval monasteries around here that were reused as stone quarries for other construction within 50 years of no longer being used. And those are gravesites.
To be fair, the Roman ruins weren't any more interesting to the medieval folks than the old, run down city block that got leveled for redevelopment. Defiling war graves for profit in the 21st century? Satan's digging an exploratory trench for something under Cocytus. (And likely making a special floaty chair for me in Styx)
It takes more than unemployed people to salvage ships on the sea bed. Those communities would have been far better served investing the resources it took to do the illegal salvage operations in themselves.
Kidd: according to several comments on the video, the shouting was "Alto tu barco!", meaning "Stop your boat!"Ah right, thanks
Yeah, I saw a video link of them actually getting that thing . . .We were watching it at work this morning. l think everyone was amazed the sub opened the hatch.
Coastie in tac gear (lol, desert brown) had leaped over to the top and was pounding on the hatch with some chop on the seas.
They are not really subs are they? My understanding is they did not really submerge, but were built to snorkel at the surface and thus be very hard to see by radar.Semi-submersible. Who knows, a bunch of nukes were laughing then making fun of the air force since they can't really make fun of Coasties now. :D
They are not really subs are they? My understanding is they did not really submerge, but were built to snorkel at the surface and thus be very hard to see by radar.most are semi-submersible, but a few are full submarines. the later usually can't dive all that deep (a few dozen feet) but that is usually because they are made from flimsier materials like fiberglass.
You know you are having a bad day when someone knocks on the door of your submarine in the middle of the ocean. >:D
(https://wearethemighty-img.rbl.ms/simage/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.rbl.ms%2F17313335%2F980x.jpg/2000%2C2000/oxy8JPj1qkUpU7Rp/img.jpg)
Heeeeey, let's drift away from modern-day socio-economics for a while...
(https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/b/1/u/g/3/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.710x400.1b1swi.png/1461108299289.jpg)
My father-in-law passed away a few days ago- he was a native Kiwi who moved to the U.S. many years ago to work at his nation's embassy in Washington DC, and never left after marrying and having a couple of daughters (the eldest of whom I married a few weeks ago). He was fiercely proud of his heritage, and over drinks last fall we'd had a discussion about Gallipoli and other battles fought by the Kiwis during WWI. I'd mentioned to him that they'd even owned a battlecruiser (sort of) during that war, and he lit up- he'd been unaware that HMS New Zealand existed. She was an early battlecruiser, obsolete the moment she hit the water, but fought throughout the war as part of Beatty's battle line regardless.
The above photo was one of a small collage of New Zealand history photos we'd put together as a little collage to put on his wall while he was in hospice care, and was just taken down last night as we started going through his personal effects. (I'd hoped to find blueprints of the ship for him to look over, but never was able to find any prior to his passing).
Note the wide distance between the funnels, the idea being that the wing turrets could aim across the other side of the ship between the gaps and provide a full broadside- in reality this simply ruined the decks and had an absurdly tight arc of fire, so it was a failed idea.
They are not really subs are they? My understanding is they did not really submerge, but were built to snorkel at the surface and thus be very hard to see by radar.
Only two were made.The two were classed as part of the 8-ship Siegfried class. The two differed slightly in design from the other six units (the other six were even shorter and stubbier). Ägir also differs from Odin by use of Thornycroft pressure boilers and more electric support systems.
The above coastal protection role was abandoned, and they were to be used as a homogenous single squadron (in line with Tirpitz reorganizing the ships-of-the-line in 8-ship squadrons).wait so they refitted the ships and then basically use them as normal sea combat ship?
wait so they refitted the ships and then basically use them as normal sea combat ship?Well, they intended to. Their main use to Tirpitz was something else though: Marking them as obsolete so that he could push through more procurement of "real" battleships to replace them. The replacement ships came off the slips between 1909 and 1912.
To be fair, until the 1940s that was true of all submarines. I would guess the drug smugglers are looking to use internal combustion engines rather than something more complex to power their "subs" so they would be audible to sonar - I can't help but wonder if as a side tasking any SSNs are passing details they pick up to the USCG.
I just wondered on the Kearsage could the 8" turret turn independently form the 13" gun?? Have the 13" gun fire at the port and the 8" fire at the starboard?
Those Gunners on top of the Kearsarge has 13 turret must shaken ot when tbe big guns fired. I can't imagine that helps with Aiming. Without reading a dedicated book on the subject, i'd I would think that the Ship's Cafe Mason choose when it's going to be using those Ford 8-inch Guns Over the larger Canon so I don't think they would be using them at the same time.
You'd think that but nope! Both mountings would be in action at the same time. Because of the performance of propellant and the ranges they would fight at (where something like 4,000 yards is long range, and 2,000 yards was much better) the 8-inch shells had decent armour penetration performance, not that of the the 13-inch rounds but fired far quicker. VS the cost of having a far smaller bursting charge and doing less damage. So the tactics of the time for most pre-dreadnought ships of this era was get close, hammer with secondary battery to start fires and silence the enemies secondary battery whilst landing the odd heavy hit with your main guns.
The USN adopted the 8-inch gun on its pre-dreadnoughts because at the time the gun fired far faster than the big 13-inch rifles and punched harder than 6-inch guns. But advances in propellant and guns reduced the firing cycle of 12 inch guns considerably (the slow burning 'cocoa powder' propellant HAD to be swabbed from the guns every time you fired), but the USN retained the 8-inch guns, even replacing the standard 6-inch guns of other nations pre-dreadnought secondaries with a 7-inch gun.
So..yeah! In action, both 13 and 8-inch guns would be in action at the same time.
Well, i tried find pictures (if they exist) of the Kearsarge firing her guns. No luck there.
However, i found a rare picture of First LT onboard the CSS Alabama, which pretty darn old picture.
(http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/archive/displays/alabama/graphics/large/css-alabama-kell.jpg)
The picture was archived in collection in England.
Wow. I can't believe that they're both firing at the same time. I've been on a 3in twin gun mount and that stuff can be really jarring when the guns are firing. I can only imagine what it's like being on there with a 13in cannon firing below me and the 8-inch gun firing with me.
EDIT: Gaud! My phone is killing me with stupid autocorrections!
A very good analysis! As stated here, pre-dreadnoughts mounted a few heavy guns for hammerblows on armored targets (their opposite number in the enemy formation, most likely), but because it took so long to reload them they would use mid-sized guns to keep pressure on, and small-caliber weapons to deal with motor torpedo boats and the like. The rise of the dreadnought came due to the rate of fire of larger guns increasing to a level in which they were firing roughly three times in two minutes- a rate of fire that really wasn't all that far behind the mid-caliber guns. So, as three nations all discovered at the same time (independently of each other!), it really made more sense to just built an all-big gun ship. Japan's first one ended up being re-armed with mid-size guns after all due to a big-gun shortage, but the British and Americans moved ahead with theirs- Dreadnought technically started after the American South Carolina, but finished sooner. Both were intriguing in their own way- Dreadnought was realistically the superior ship thanks to her turbine engines (arguably a greater technological leap than the big-gun battery!), but South Carolina featured superfiring gun mounts, which made for a much more compact and better-planned layout for the armor. The steps forward made by both classes can be seen on almost every battleship class that followed around the world for the remainder of the battleship era.
The USN adopted the 8-inch gun on its pre-dreadnoughts because at the time the gun fired far faster than the big 13-inch rifles and punched harder than 6-inch guns. But advances in propellant and guns reduced the firing cycle of 12 inch guns considerably (the slow burning 'cocoa powder' propellant HAD to be swabbed from the guns every time you fired), but the USN retained the 8-inch guns, even replacing the standard 6-inch guns of other nations pre-dreadnought secondaries with a 7-inch gun.
I had always wondered why the big guns on the late 1800s battleships took several minutes between shots. That makes sense if they were being swabbed after every round.
As sighting equipment let engagements start at 10,000 yards plus, it made better sense to just use guns of all one calibre, firing in directed salvos.
I don't know, I quite like the look of tumbledown. Just not the sea-keeping properties.
you have to give it to the French. They literally like making their warships back in the day unique and original. Semi-mersible too.
The French ships certinally were...unique. Even for that period!Well, at least their current aircraft carrier doesn't have TWO islands to confuse people which structure is the bridge and which one is the pilot's lounge. ;D
I actually have a half-finished model of a WoB blue-water warship for a long-deceased campaign (the one used to test the webbed campaign from CamOps actually)... a bone-white Tenryu-class light cruiser (Tatsuta, to be specific). The weapons were going to be swappable for a pair of AA turrets from Partisan AA vehicles from MWDA, while a pair of MWDA missile turrets would give the ship its big artillery weapons. Another pair of gun mounts (I don't think I made a final decision on them) would have replaced the torpedo mounts as well.blue-water? Aside from the Wyrm-Class SDS Submersible Fortress, i didn't think there were any. Though i'd love see some invented! Hope you post it else where so we can see them.
blue-water? Aside from the Wyrm-Class SDS Submersible Fortress, i didn't think there were any. Though i'd love see some invented! Hope you post it else where so we can see them.
I have a hard time believing a battleship can ever be considered "culturally insensitive"... ^-^
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa)
What do you think? Too culturally insensitive? ;D
I can think of a few. But even if I'm wrong, it speaks very well of Liam that he bothered to ask. :thumbsup:I don't think it's an issue. Mi casa su casa after all.
Oddly enough I do not recall seeing any blue water surface ships for the League though I am sure there has to be one . . . Lyrans on the other hand get 4 ships they build during the League and afterwards.The Argo-Class Submersable Aircraft Carrier, it was in the Housebook: Marik. It was like first Support Vehicle made if i'm not mistaken (which i likely am). The Kraken Unleashed mercenary company bought one and transported it to a Liao planet they were contracted to defend and then sold it to them.
So, a totally serious and not at all humorous question. ;)
One of my recent denizens of the deep periphery worlds was based loosely on imperial Russian culture, and I noted in the description that they built small battleships for their oversized sea going navies.
I decided I wanted to get a properly scaled model kit to represent it on table top, and I wanted it to be a pre-dreadnought to go with the whole Imperial Russian feel.
The one ended up finding on Amazon and buying was a 1/700 scale model of this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa.jpg/1024px-Japanese_battleship_Mikasa.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa)
What do you think? Too culturally insensitive? ;D
That's a coal dust flash fire. If there's enough coal dust, that turns into an explosion. Now imagine ship corridors filled with coal dust, and painted with oil based paints being exposed to high explosive shells.RMS Lusitania called, according to Bob Ballard. So did USS Maine...
Something like that?Nah, that one's sort of the 1930s interpretation of what was originally the white-yellow "tropical" paint scheme (which until 1910 all German ships deploying overseas ran, the Imperial Yacht until 1914). The original white-yellow scheme consisted of all-white below the reling and yellow for stacks, turrets and similar "exposed hardware" above that (except gun barrels, which were white).
Could we not post the rapidly flashing strobe-like gifs? Those things give me a headache.
Fixed :)
RMS Lusitania called, according to Bob Ballard. So did USS Maine...
Its been a tour option for a few years . . . is the WWI destroyer at the quay still being refurbished? I cannot remember if it was at the Titanic museum or further up the road where the . . . passenger terminal was? It would have been behind the picture taker. The destroyer had been a training ship in WWII IIRC, and into the 50s.
No, its been repaired, but NOT restored . . . and lots of those type pictures floating around, I took one that was much the same and there were several that were similar when I looked online. The one I posted was back in '15 I think. The current images do not show the rust, lol.I'm a bit fuzzy on the nuance between the two.
Restored: They put the ship back to her original condition. See in the photos above how the old version is sleek and streamlined, while the current shots have those big bulky deckhouses and such? A restoration would put her back to her original config.
Repaired: The damned thing won't sink today!
Sure, but she is not back to her 1920 condition before she was transferred to be a training ship.
Though I will give you its a bit odd to buy new gun barrels- do they meet spec?- while leaving that added superstructure hunkering on the deck.
Lusitania was probably a coal dust explosion but the UK didn't really help matters about the accusation that she was carrying ammunition by using her as a depth charging target post war, wrecking the wreck even further.I'll definitely agree with Ballard about stuff like that, the man knows his wrecks. But there's a lot of competing theories, and history is never made of a single event but a nice little tapestry of charlie-foxtrots woven together. Data from the Royal Artillery Regiment confirms that the munitions she was carrying were actually live, powdered and fuzed, and the magazine was just forward of the coal bunker and also in the apparent strike area of the torpedo. Ballard's theory goes with the torp hitting just aft of the magazine, since he found no torpedo damage at the forward end of the magazine itself (but doesn't rule out a strike at the rear, or on the bulkhead between the bunker and magazine) hence the coal explosion.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Duquesne_4.jpg)
"You call that weird? Try harder, old man."
(Suffren-class frigate)
holy shit guys, size please
not even my PC monitor can deal with pixels of this magnitude
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Duquesne_4.jpg)
"You call that weird? Try harder, old man."
(Suffren-class frigate)
Yes... simply add a space, and "width=" something between 400 and 600 in the first img tag...
lucky them working on a ship with an epcot center attached!Huge air search radomes weren't unknown in that generation of escorts. Note the HNMLS Tromp (F801) and her massive air search radome. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/F801_Tromp_ca_1995.jpg)
Huge air search radomes weren't unknown in that generation of escorts. Note the HNMLS Tromp (F801) and her massive air search radome. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/F801_Tromp_ca_1995.jpg)
Not looking as weird, but still a weird concept for that time:Not really. Her peacetime role was to train officers for ships throughout the navy. Her wartime role was ASW escort, for which she was amply equipped with 2 quad Bofors 375mm ASW mortars, 2 twin 21-inch torpedo tubes, 2 depth charge rails; originally also two fixed backward-firing 21-inch TT. Design-wise - by shape - the ship was a 40% scaled-up Rhein class frigate tender.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/German_training_ship_Deutschland_%28A59%29_on_the_Potomac_River_in_July_1984.jpg)
The only way that gets any weirder is if sail power was involved as well.That's what the other one was for:
The only way that gets any weirder is if sail power was involved as well.
By the way, do any navies or coastguards still use sailing ships? I know there's a couple of training tall ships in service to somebody... are they any of any real use?
Would a sailing ship enable a towed array sonar ship to generate even less sound to give away position? The power generator would be able to be even more isolated from the hull to transmit sound (of course you would need power for the sonar and things!)
Non-metal hulls are used for mine warfare ships although I think there has been a shift to glass reinforced plastics rather than using wood
Not really. Her peacetime role was to train officers for ships throughout the navy. Her wartime role was ASW escort, for which she was amply equipped with 2 quad Bofors 375mm ASW mortars, 2 twin 21-inch torpedo tubes, 2 depth charge rails; originally also two fixed backward-firing 21-inch TT. Design-wise - by shape - the ship was a 40% scaled-up Rhein class frigate tender.As I said, weird. ;) The weapons were ample, yes, but totally out of date by the 1970s. Yes, the Soviets were still using ASW mortars as well, but that was by no means a state of the art concept. Not even for the Baltic Sea, where she would have been fighting. With limited speed and an outdated sonar, she would have had hard times against contemporary submarines. And the Baltics would have been a hot theater, with most of the threat coming from missiles fired by Pact airforces and the numerous fast attack craft. She absolutely stood no chance from the 1970s on.
What was actually weird about the ship was the propulsion, which was so rare that there isn't even a standard acronym for it. It really emphasized the training aspect.Yes, WAHODAGs must have been quite the nightmare. Yet another odditiy and German Sonderweg.
Since the work is being done with drones and other modular equipmentMine countermeasures warfare work has been done with ROVs for 40 years.
In short: No. Sailing ships are anything other than quiet, with the slap of sails and groaning of lines and joins. That's before you look into the noise of the generators required to run the equipment. :-P Wooden ships are significantly constrained by construction materials and require specialised maintenance, they are effectively worthless in the modern combat era.
I would think the problem is how often you might have to fish the guy out of the drink . . . if the weight did not pull him immediately under.look like a decommissioned gun bunker.
Btw, what is that in the background? Looks like some WWII bunker.
look like a decommissioned gun bunker.
"Two hits are scored"
two sorties with about 10 Disney Swishes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6ZKPbv9jqY)
(https://www.ussgambierbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/cropped-Freedoms-Cost-Photo.jpg)
USS Gambier Bay sinks after a pummeling from Japanese surface vessels during the Philippines invasion.
*snip*Am I the only one getting DoME vibes here? :D
- and most of the island itself -
*snip*
Am I the only one getting DoME vibes here? :DNot quite on that scale, they did leave 40% of the island - just pared down to only the central fortress pretty much...
What's that big tall ship in the middle?
Makes my thumbs itch for a cutting out expedition.
What's that big tall ship in the middle?Squinting a lot, i think it's the Italian tall ship, Amerigo Vespucci. She painted like her anyways.
Makes my thumbs itch for a cutting out expedition.
I was wandering the internet, came across this.Nice pic. I sunk Al Badr in a solo game of Sixth Fleet just last winter. :D
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=53969)
This was Libyan Navy's S311 ‘Al Badr’ was one of six ships sold to Libya. A member of the Foxtrot class Attack submarine ‘B-533’ when she was commissioned in the USSR's navy. Why she was abandoned in the shipyard for such long time i don't know. She was eventually scraped in 2014.
I was wandering the internet, came across this.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=53969)
This was Libyan Navy's S311 ‘Al Badr’ was one of six ships sold to Libya. A member of the Foxtrot class Attack submarine ‘B-533’ when she was commissioned in the USSR's navy. Why she was abandoned in the shipyard for such long time i don't know. She was eventually scraped in 2014.
Overgrown is a condition that you rarely associate with submarines
When trying to find other pictures of land submarines (subterra?) I ran across this . . .There is also the story of U-118, an Imperial German Navy submarine that washed ashore at Hastings.
Interesting story . . . you could say the sub got a 'kill' without a crew & while decommissioned. The whole thing is sort of weird . . . the St Louis class cruiser was decommissioned a year after being built and was a reserve ship . . . then refit as a support vessel for torpedo equipped ships.
Those long sonar fins on 1950s subs always amaze me. Designwise 1950s subs look like they're right out of a atompunk pulp novel.1950s ANYTHING pretty much defines the atompunk aesthetic...
1950s ANYTHING pretty much defines the atompunk aesthetic...
Those long sonar fins on 1950s subs always amaze me. Designwise 1950s subs look like they're right out of a atompunk pulp novel.The PUFFS (Passive Underwater Fire-control Feasibility System/Studies) arrays?
Apropos of nothing, a great article on LA Googie architecture: https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/29/16384732/googie-southern-california-architectureGod that defines my childhood. Born in San Diego in '77. SUCH FEEL. VERY NOSTALGIA.
God that defines my childhood. Born in San Diego in '77. SUCH FEEL. VERY NOSTALGIA.
Are hypersonic anti-ship missiles a real thing yet, or just one of those "everybody is working on it and they're totally 5-10 years from completion, I swear" things?All sides have supposedly successful experimental versions of the things
Apropos of nothing, a great article on LA Googie architecture: https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/29/16384732/googie-southern-california-architecture
Good thing for those hypersonic missiles that carriers don't have launchers of their own and roll with escorts loaded with missiles capable of mach 3.5, am I right? All alone like a big giant target, just screaming to be shot, that's the way to use a modern CVN!Well, Lockmart is working on a hypersonic interceptor (Arrow), but until then, the response seems to be to attack the launch platform, hide, or deploy lots of ECM and hope for the best.
Doesn't hypersonic missiles have certain weaknesses like manuevering during the hypersonic flight is being severely limited or take too much room to do?The reverse. Hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV - that's what's everyone developing) have vastly improved maneuvering over the default reentry systems of their carrier vehicles - many ballistic vehicles have flight paths that mimic similar maneuvering, but due to momentum and lack of control structures are heavily restricted in their horizontal movement and offer zero retargeting/reattack capability.
There's a great reason the SR-71 flew at 90,000 feet+, the air's thin enough that Mach 3.5 was only heating the skin to 450oF or so. If you tried to do that at low altitude, you'd incinerate your missile like a meteor.SHEFEX II, a German hypersonic glider, descended from 920,000 ft apogee to 50,000 ft in a low-angle (35°) reentry into the atmosphere while shedding speed from Mach 11.5 down to Mach 5.9 in 2010. It reached 1500°F on its leading edge at Mach 11 at 100,000 ft as its top temperature, considerably before the maximum dynamic pressure point at 66,000 ft. It was previously ground-tested up to around 3000°F and carried an internal sensor suite with over 80 temperature sensors previously flown for the same kinda analysis on a ballistic reentry cone launched on a SLBM from a Russian submarine.
HMS Egret, she was armed sloop in the British Navy. Launched in 1938, armed eight 4inch guns and machine guns.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/HMS_Egret.jpg)
What unique about her unique, is she is the first warship to be sunk by guided weapon. She was part of a 40th Support Group in 1943, with her sistership and some frigates. She was being used for surveillance mission watching for German bombers. However, sadly she herself of victim and her entire crew of one these bombers, using a radio controlled Henschel Hs 293 glide bomb.
Very British in design, the cutaway from one deck down to a two deck quarterdeck is a hallmark of the Brits.Yes, the cutaway is so very iconic. I don't know what it's for but it somehow looks dashing.
Pity she doesn't have the high cable deck.
Electronics and helipad and MUCH better accommodation takes up space and mass - and don't knock the "accommodation" bitI know, i just think today's ships are bit under armed. I realize commerce and travel on the water ways are less so than they were half a century ago.
I mean, you read about some of the WW2 small ships, you kinda wonder if it's the Second World War or War of the Second Coalition, conditions are that bad...!
I know, i just think today's ships are bit under armed.Italy is currently replacing its Minerva class patrol corvettes with Paolo Thaon di Revel class offshore patrol vessels.
I'm more surprised that designation 1,200 ton Sloop was still being used and Frigate. Prior to World War II, before US's designations changed everything to Escort Destroyer (formerly known as a Frigate). HMS Egret was one of two ship ships. Aside from being i guess a patrol ship and a surveillance ship, i had no clue what a sloop built in the 1930s should could be possibly doing.
Nowadays, River Class Patrol Ships are mainstain of the Royal Navy's patrol missions. Which are essentially being used to keep the shipyards busy as there struggling keep their doors open from what I've read.
Such as this ship, HMS Forth (P222), she a 2,000 ton Patrol ship belong to the Batch II group of the River Class.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/HMS_Forth_formally_gets_commissioned_into_the_Royal_Navy_13042018_MOD_45164104.jpg)
In comparisoning it to the older and lighter Sloop, i find HMS Egret bit more warship than Forth is. With newer ship with it's single 30mm cannon, and assorted machine guns and mini-gun verse HMS Egret's eight 4 inch naval guns and machine guns she was armed with it.
Does anyone know why darling class destroyer seem to be I don't know under arm for what they are. It's supposed to be like the large combatant of the British Navy and yet it only has limited amount of weapons in comparison to say an Aegis Destroyer. I know there's economic difference between the two countries that employ different weapon systems but still it seems a bit under-armed.
48 SAMs? That will only last so long in today's ASCM environment...
About half as long as an Arleigh Burke will last.The Burkes carry about 60-70 SAMs, the rest of the tubes typically go to other missions. So not half, not exactly.
They were going to have a 1 to 1 replacement for the Type 23s but the ships just kept going up and up in price.Type 42, not Type 23. 13 The Type 23 are planned to be replaced by 8 Type 26 and 5 Type 31e.
The Type 45 VLS is not large enough for TLAM missiles.It's not compatible to Tomahawk in the first place. The Type 45 carries French Sylver A50 VLS systems. Which are too short for Scalp Naval as the designated cruise missile for the system.
The 16 additional Sylver tubes not installed would have been long enough, "strike length" as the Brits call it.
The Type 45 carries French Sylver A50 VLS systems. Which are too short for Scalp Naval as the designated cruise missile for the system.
Type 42, not Type 23. 13 The Type 23 are planned to be replaced by 8 Type 26 and 5 Type 31e.Due to economic uncertainty, the Shipyard in Northern Ireland, famed making HMS Titanic closed it doors by it's parent company It was suppose to build the Type 31e Light Frigates.
Seems to be an upsized frigate that came out of a multinational frigate study/design of the 90's. The reasoning was listed as something larger and more capable but the 45's seem to fall in line with other modern frigates while the Burkes stand alone. Granted, a large part of that is fleet air defense for the Burkes, but you would think the modular nature of VLS would push you to more tubes for greater flexibility.
Due to economic uncertainty, the Shipyard in Northern Ireland, famed making HMS Titanic closed it doors by it's parent company It was suppose to build the Type 31e Light Frigates.Not at all.
(https://ukdj.imgix.net/e3acef77d3e73bc4a10da21dbcdf7d87_/Arrowhead-140web.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=top&fit=crop&h=580&ixlib=php-1.2.1&q=80&w=1021&wpsize=td_1021x580&s=f4d08887089aa0f75501256806683bac)
This is what its suppose to have looked like. Its not impossible for the ships to be made, but economic wreck the Britain is facing may prematurely cancel the ships.
The ROKN Sejong the Great and the JMSDF Kongo/Atago/Maya are comparable, although I guess they're kinda related to the BurkesThey are based on the Burke but tweaked to fit their needs. The Burke was floated as an idea for the British due to it being a price stable platform but they wanted their own thing it seems.
The Type 45's size and VLS capability is fairly similar to the PLAN's Type 052D
They are based on the Burke but tweaked to fit their needs. The Burke was floated as an idea for the British due to it being a price stable platform but they wanted their own thing it seems.The ROKN Sejong the Great and the JMSDF Kongo/Atago/Maya Classes are generally big enough to be considered to be cruisers. Seems no one want use that designation for some reason. I was saying Darling-Class were feeling bit..undergunned was they have less VLS tubes than most ships designated as Destroyers. There was jabbering about adding Strike size Mk41 VLS launchers on them, but i think as usual the budget won't allow it. Most European ocean going navies that employ guided missile ships have 32 tubes or more. Unless they Darlings some how reload.
The ROKN Sejong the Great and the JMSDF Kongo/Atago/Maya Classes are generally big enough to be considered to be cruisers. Seems no one want use that designation for some reason. I was saying Darling-Class were feeling bit..undergunned was they have less VLS tubes than most ships designated as Destroyers. There was jabbering about adding Strike size Mk41 VLS launchers on them, but i think as usual the budget won't allow it. Most European ocean going navies that employ guided missile ships have 32 tubes or more. Unless they Darlings some how reload.
Chinese are commissioning Destroyers, Type 055 which are shouting distance of Ticonderoga-Class CGs and Flight II Burke Class DDGs.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=54071)
These pair of Type 055 were commissioned i think nearly same day. They're in need due to Carriers coming on line needing serious AA escorts.
Darings have 48 VLS tubes, same as most every other European AAW ship, and the Australian Hobarts.
I was saying Darling-Class were feeling bit..undergunned was they have less VLS tubes than most ships designated as Destroyers. There was jabbering about adding Strike size Mk41 VLS launchers on them, but i think as usual the budget won't allow it. Most European ocean going navies that employ guided missile ships have 32 tubes or more.
pollution control with heavily arm ships was always strange to me.All Italian boats for policing duties built in the late 80s were armed with at least a 76mm due to possible altercations/harassments with e.g. Libya in the Gulf of Sirte at the time.
What IS pollution control anyway?
To me it conjures images of a firefighter boat spraying magical decontaminant... or a garbage scow with a backhoe scoop :D
And why do navies use sail training ships? Other than for PR.
And why do navies use sail training ships? Other than for PR.
But all of the cadets are removed from modern high tech supports and they are left to rely on very basic instruments. Like a obstacle course for the Army, its a way of building confidence for the cadets- especially in rough seas/conditions, to KNOW you can survive it exposed to raw nature as you struggle to accomplish the task.More important than you might think. Ask the crew of the USS Franklin, the most heavily damaged warship to survive WWII.
I read in a novel back in middle school that US navy ships carried sails for emergency situations at least as late as world war II. Anybody know if that's true? It seems suspicious to a mind that isn't twelve years old anymore.
Pollution control I'm guessing would be tasked with checking ships in a nation's area of interest insuring things are not being dumped in their watersPollution control ships carry:
Largest dedicated civilian coastguard patrol ships in the EU.Correcting myself on that: These are the largest.
I read in a novel back in middle school that US navy ships carried sails for emergency situations at least as late as world war II. Anybody know if that's true? It seems suspicious to a mind that isn't twelve years old anymore.
Mister Monkey, we must make repairs before the Bismarck comes about again; fother a sail over the bottom, get these shot holes plugged, have that halyard re-rove; gunners load double shot and grape; boarding party assemble on the foc'sle! For the King, country, and the prize!
That leaves me wondering, when was the last time a warship was taken by boarding?"On June 4, 1944 a United States Navy task force led by Captain Daniel V. Gallery boarded and captured U-505."
That leaves me wondering, when was the last time a warship was taken by boarding?
I've heard stories of a sub just before the war that suffered an engine failure, and sail back to Pearl. Also a carrier that, while not truly under sail, took rudder/propeller damage and rigged a jib sail in order to better maintain yaw control on the way back to port.
When the North Koreans seized that USS Pueblo maybe. The USCG has seized some old Russian Subs sold to cartels.That was a reasearch ship and not an actual warship.
https://youtu.be/7rnVSlcs7_E
But it was a navy vessel . . . and from what I understand, why the USN re-instituted having small arms for the crew.
Well it was a commissioned US Navy ship, so
If non-military is allowed, then this one a couple months ago definitely counts as a capture by boarding IMO
That leaves me wondering, when was the last time a warship was taken by boarding?Nine months ago, Kerch Straits.
"That leaves me wondering, when was the last time a warship was taken by boarding?"Depends on your definition of boarding. If the crew surrendered without a shot, probably as recently as Gulf War 1, IIRC. If opposed... hoo boy.
Was vessel or simple ship mentioned? xp
Nice pic, looks like she is headed somewhere in a hurry . . . what is that camo pattern? Is that six 4 inch on the bow?No idea where she's headed, but that's a very nice camo innit? It's really what drew me to this pic.
(https://abload.de/img/fotonoticia_201801251nekct.jpg)Is... is that unenclosed?!
(https://abload.de/img/vianavyk8v.jpg)Which Navy? How much did the recent ones cost?
Is... is that unenclosed?!Yes, that's an original unenclosed, manually loaded 3"/50 Mk22 gun - probably built in the 50s or 60s, Spain has a license for them since the 30s. It's usually under a weather protection tarp and only uncovered if they want to scare some pirates - or the Royal Navy. Or the Canadians. Or the Moroccan Army. The Spanish Armada states they are for "warning shots (shots across the bow)".
Which Navy? How much did the recent ones cost?Portugal. 60 million EUR per ship for the last deal announced July 2018, the previous pair ordered in 2015 only cost about 78 million EUR for both ships.
Don't suppose you know the class names of all of these gorgeous OPVs, or their operators?Coordination agency for operators listed below is the European Border and Coast Guard Agency FRONTEX, currently responsible for coordinating supporting use of assets where they are needed.
60 million euro doesn't seem cheap. Maybe that's inclusive of support costs.It's cheap for the size. TKMS will try to sell you about the same thing for twice as much.
*snip*For which, I'm sure Rule 4 thanks you...
which i'm not gonna translate.
*snip*
It's cheap for the size. TKMS will try to sell you about the same thing for twice as much.Brazil's Amazonas cost them 35 million pounds per, granted that was some time back but inflation can't be that severe.
For which, I'm sure Rule 4 thanks you...That is definitely the case.
Brazil's Amazonas cost them 35 million pounds per, granted that was some time back but inflation can't be that severe.Inflation and currency exchange. 2007 contract, convert to EUR at exchange rate then and add EUR inflation to 2018... results in 56.5 million EUR.
What? You're Belgian?? Who knew!! ??? ;D
Most of the craft are of French origin, a couple of La Combattante IIa, La Combattante III, La Combattante IIIb and exactly two Osprey 55-class gunboat of Cold War US vintage.They also built copies of the Osprey 55 in the HSY-55 (1993/94) and HSY-56A (2003-2005). Six units total, gun armament only.
affirmer la souveraineté française aux Terres australes et antarctiques françaises
570 or 750 tons, 54 or 61m long, 15 or 24 crew
4200 tons, 72m long, 31 crew
Inflation and currency exchange. 2007 contract, convert to EUR at exchange rate then and add EUR inflation to 2018... results in 56.5 million EUR.What do you think about the Larssen and Toubro Vikram-class OPV?
P.S. Fassmer OPV80 also retail for around 55-60 million EUR, as of 2018.
26 knA bit on the fast side for the role. Usually that's what the helicopter is for.
Genuine question: Why are you not giving the class name and nationality in these posts? ??? Seems like it should be the very first bit of info given, to me...Is there really a difference whether you pop "Chilreu class" or "P63 Arnomendi" into Google?
"Meteoro class"
"Viana do Castelo class"
"Comandanti class"
Despite A pennant due to duties...Reminds me of the HOS Oilfield Support Vessels used as escorts for HVU's around certain naval bases like USNS Arrowhead (T-AGSE-4).
(https://abload.de/img/a621cqjyb.jpg)
A621 d'Entrecasteaux.
A622 Bougainville.
A623 Champlain.
A624 Dumont d'Urville.
Multi-purpose ships commissioned 2016-2018. Used for EEZ patrol in overseas stations as primary function. Civilian "Platform Supply Vessel" hull design.
2000 tons, 65m long, 20 crew.
No armament.
No helicopter deck. Space for landing platoon of 20 troops and 2 vehicles. Typically carries a 8m long gendarmerie vedette as daughter boat.
I wasn't able locate the picture of the original La Combattante however, whom was scrapped 1994.(https://abload.de/img/nnx2ibjze.jpg)
Reminds me of the HOS Oilfield Support Vessels used as escorts for HVU's around certain naval bases like USNS Arrowhead (T-AGSE-4).Yeah, "Platform Supply Vessels" are just that - support vessels for oil platforms. They pretty much all look like that, basically a tug design with a large flatdeck cargo space aft.
Those look like awfully big guns for such a small vessel...No, this is awfully big guns on a small vessel.
THAT looks like a lot of weight way too high for stability...That's why these monitors had WIDE bottoms. Bulges.
That's why these monitors had WIDE bottoms. Bulges.
Fat bottomed girls like to rock.
The Russians sold her with a warranty.When i read the article, it almost sounded like the Russians were doing something with one the other Kiev-Class ships they retired. Given the material state of the previous ships, how often India's ship had to get engines fixed, i doubt they'd dump more money in 30+ year old design until i remember Russia sold half of them to China as museum ships, 1 scrapped, and INS Vikramaditya.
Not exactly a normal procedure with warships.
That's "Kiev" in cyrillic alphabet
Not sure what is written on the hull. I thought it used to be the CCCP thing, but it's hard to make out.
Did the head of the design bureau end up as a bloodname among the Ice Hellions?
'Penny-wise and Pound-foolish' -unofficial motto of Italian Navy 1930s . . .
Wonder if there was a Allied report about the hull's status . . . you would think she might have been taken as reparations. Wood or steel flight deck?I think by 1945 there were far too many carriers around, and of later and probably better design
I've been to her. She be interesting ship.
A question I had today: does anyone still use torpedoes on surface vessels anymore? Or do only subs carry them?
A question I had today: does anyone still use torpedoes on surface vessels anymore? Or do only subs carry them?Like chanman said their used as anti sub weapons on surface ships. However there more also being use as anti-torpedo waspons aboard us aircraft carriers. Aircraft also use them from. From helios to maritime patrol aircraft such as P-8 Poseidon .
A question I had today: does anyone still use torpedoes on surface vessels anymore? Or do only subs carry them?Only small (324mm/12.8") diameter ASW torpedoes. It was planned to fit MK 48 heavy weight torpedoes to some CGN's in the 1970s, but a heavy torpedo wasn't worth it. I suspect it was range limitations and issues with wire guided weapons and maneuver. The other question is what's the role for a heavy ASW torpedo for a surface ship? Long range ASW persecution is carried out by onboard helicopters in most navies, or missiles carrying torpedoes like the VLASROC (RUM-139). Surface launched torpedoes are a last ditch system, as if the ship is in range, the submarine is as well.
Like chanman said their used as anti sub weapons on surface ships. However there more also being use as anti-torpedo waspons aboard us aircraft carriers. Aircraft also use them from. From helios to maritime patrol aircraft such as P-8 Poseidon .
I'm just surprised torpedoes aren't regarded as good weapons to mount on a surface ship.I think because if you need to and are in range to fire one, you're already in deep doo-doo
I'm just surprised torpedoes aren't regarded as good weapons to mount on a surface ship.
This sentence confuses the hell out of me. If, as you allege, torpedoes aren't regarded as useful weapons for ships...then why does damned near every warship afloat bigger than an OPV and smaller than a carrier carry them? Same goes for missiles designed to give extra range to them, and aircraft that devote hardpoints to them?I meant as a anti surface weapon vs a primarily anti submarine weapon on Surface Ships.
Seems pretty widely deployed for a supposedly bad weapon.
The British Spearfish makes 80 kn, as stated above, which is almost 150 km/h. That's 2.5 km per minute, so it takes the torpedo 10 minutes to reach a target at 25 km.Spearfish has a speed-optimized motor setting for those 80 knots. It only does 14 nm range at this speed, hence not being able to engage at 25 km at all. At "standard speed" it reaches 30 nm - much like about every other modern 533mm torpedo.
Hypothetically, could torpedoes be used as "active mines"? Drop them in the path of an enemy force set to attack when they get in range?
Um that's not what that mine is. That particular mine is set in a torpedo so it can be placed in places where no minelayers can go. It's not same as a torpedo being set in an area and immedaitely attack when the target is within its range (detection and attack range)
I believe that is exactly what a modern naval mine is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_mine#US_mines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_mine#US_mines)
I prefer this way:Gloriously absurd. Was watching that just the other day. :thumbsup:
(https://t00.deviantart.net/0KbM86-5qnC9Z3Ah_FxqtO99Fmw=/fit-in/300x900/filters:no_upscale():origin()/pre00/0c5b/th/pre/f/2015/011/b/7/black_lagoon_revy_x_male_reader__rival_love_2_by_endervslender-d8dk3iu.png)
I was thinking more along the line of dropping the above mentioned DM2A4 hours ahead of an enemy force and have it loiter until the enemy gets there, rather than actively hunting for them.The original idea Atlas Elektronik had was making their torpedos viable for a defense from the shoreside. As in:
Boat. :)Boat has oars!
Boat has oars!I want to say a QE or Reveng. Kongo is a possibility but this show the rear turrets and they're not far apart.
Since you guys are posting anime pictures. This is a real battleship they used as model for this anime.
Does anyone know which battleship this thing modelled from? It looks like a Pre-WW2 ship, but not a predreadnought. I think she British
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/0f1ce4dec598ba681bc883af58e6c75a/tumblr_olkk023iwC1u4xyjko3_r1_500.gif)
Superstructure of a KGV and turrets of a QE, I want to say...
That would be a pretty good way to describe the Vanguard
The big mast is a big giveaway, that's no Vanguard, its either a Queen Elisabeth or possibly the Hood. *edit* Looking at the hull you can see the cut away for the secondary battery casemates, that's a QE.the bow shape match QE, it's not a clipper bow like Hood.
I suppose the shoes, at least, will remain alongside the glass of the portholes, scattered about.Funny, how little we know about the Deep Blue. In flatter seas, like the North Sea or the Baltic Sea, organic material like shoes, would be first to vanish.
(https://joeccombs2nd.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/shoes.jpg)
I believe other artifacts have also been found stolen. I wonder how they did it. The Pacific wrecks were a mere trip to the beach by comparison.
Pity, the Titanic is a story that really captures one's imagination, even without the benefit of the movie. It was also the first model I assembled, a huge half meter paper thing with cross sections.
But oh, well... time just moves on. There's only so long you can be attached to things.
Problem with the Titanic is it does not fall under any treaties IIRC and it is in international waters . . . so while it maybe morally repugnant, its not illegal depending on the country the salvage ship is flagged from. IIRC they KNOW who made the first scavenger dive.Really? Who?
Between 25 July and 10 September 1987, an expedition mounted by IFREMER and a consortium of American investors which included George Tulloch, G. Michael Harris, D. Michael Harris and Ralph White made 32 dives to Titanic using the submersible Nautile. Controversially, they salvaged and brought ashore more than 1,800 objects.[41] A joint Russian-Canadian-American expedition took place in 1991 using the research vessel (ROV) Akademik Mstislav Keldysh and its two MIR submersibles.
Funny, how little we know about the Deep Blue. In flatter seas, like the North Sea or the Baltic Sea, organic material like shoes, would be first to vanish.Tanned leather. The stuff is quite repulsive to organic contamination, since they weren't exactly using the gentlest of chemicals and techniques in 1912. You can see some "clothes" as well that are probably similarly tanned leather coats or tarps that were about.
Thank god Ballard found her when he did. Otherwise Titanic would be one of the great maritime mysteries, in a few more years.All because the Navy wanted to know more about the status of lost USS Scorpion (SSN-589) and Thresher (SSN-593).
Pressure on the hull of at that depth is immaterial b/c none of the compartments are sealed/pressurized, so the stresses are the same as it would be shallower.You'd still get some pressure from the seafloor current flow, as it swirls around and through the wreck itself. Static water pressure certainly took its toll long ago, but it's still being pushed on (gently) by the current which IIRC was about one and a half knots from the 2012 Cameron retrospective.
Hypothetically, could torpedoes be used as "active mines"? Drop them in the path of an enemy force set to attack when they get in range?yes:
yes:limited to submarines though, is there other verions that attack other ships beside submarines?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR
"Only" is no way to describe a 64-cell VLS...Reason why i said it that way was that typical Burkes carry 96 tubes, European ships have typically 32-Cell arrangements, not counting the odd ball launchers.
'Fastest Boat Ever"when she was commissioned in 1893, clocked at 28.21 knots.
Where is she moored? There like control toward for the port or odd light house in background.
Consider the US Arleigh Burke's have between 90 & 96 cells...In terms of navies the USN is quite an outlier.
Call me odd but most ships with VLS launchers in the US fleet can't replenish their launchers at see anymore. That capacity was deleted to make more room for missiles. I'm not sure if early Ticos and flight 0 Burkes still have them.The ammunitioning crane only takes up 3 cells per group IINM
Consider the US Arleigh Burke's have between 90 & 96 cells...
Damon.
It's quite in line with the difference in loaded displacement. The Burkes, Kongo/Atago/Maya, and Sejong the Great classes tend to displace some 2000 tons more at full load than the Type 052D or Horizon-class. The real outlier is the British Type 45
However apparently it was considered impractical since the rearming operation can only be done in quite restrictive sea state conditionsAlso the crane system (as well as the current transfer capabilities of the munitions carriers) was only good for SM2 or Sea Sparrow sets, SM6 and Tomahawk were too heavy either for the crane to handle or to be transferred at sea. Still are, actually; the Navy's looking at forward-deployed rearmament points simply because even modern UNREP can't handle the 3,000lb+ weights.
So they have either program their tomahawks in the tubes with info being feed into them or they have surface or another form 2nd means to guide the missiles after their fired from the sub.Tomahawk retargeting-after-launch (there is no active guidance) always occurs via UHF SATCOM.
Tomahawk retargeting-after-launch (there is no active guidance) always occurs via UHF SATCOM.
After cancellation of the Regulus program with arrival the Polaris ICBMs, the Grayback became used as Amphibious Troop carrying submarine with her signature twin large hangars for the Regulus missiles. She stayed in commission as Amfib sub till mid 1980.
any more info on this? # of troops, scheme of deployment?
Could carry up to 67 troops dropped off some SEALs in the Vietnam War.
How about a picture of....a book?
I found a copy of Norman Friedman's U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History for a reasonable price online last week. It just showed up today. I'd love to say what ship (or ships) are on the cover, but I honestly don't know. I guess I'll find out when I read it. ;)
(https://i.imgur.com/VAUiBHr.jpg)
OMG, the N# would have been an ugly ship. A horrible layout for the battery and the superstructure is horrid as well.
Plus a time bomb with torpedoes hitting that thing at mid-ship. Looks terribly vulnerable to a attacking from behind too. Like no anti-ship weapons aft.
I hadn't seen pictures of what G3 looked like. Then again, its properly just as effective as Nelson, as long they get their target on the ship's broadside.
Today is the 238th anniversary of the Battle of the Chesapeake, without which Washington could never have won Yorktown.Vive la France! Vive Comte de Grasse!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/BattleOfVirginiaCapes.jpg/640px-BattleOfVirginiaCapes.jpg)
Lucky fellow, I've been looking for Friedman's British Cruisers for a while.
Cyclone-Class Patrol Ships
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Cyclone-class_patrol_ships_in_the_Persian_Gulf_in_March_2015.JPG)
These ships were used during the 90s to now. However, to me, like Pegasus Class before them, small ships in the US Navy never popular.
Originally these ships were intended for Special forces, to deliver SEALs and other special forces. However, they were too big and unfortunately they suffer from Hull fatigue.
A number of them have been deployed to the Persian Gulf, however these small ships have mainly been used as drug interdiction in Florida.
Today is the 238th anniversary of the Battle of the Chesapeake, without which Washington could never have won Yorktown.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/BattleOfVirginiaCapes.jpg/640px-BattleOfVirginiaCapes.jpg)
The deck gun was actually really useful.
U-boats are most often used as commerce raiders. Just a couple of good hits from a deck gun would hole and thus probably sink a merchant ship, and submarines carried ten times as many shells as a torpedo. It was a very economical weapon.
I believe a gun also made the one train kill a sub claimed possible... ^-^
They should just make it a Battle-Carrier instead...
You know, half carrier and half battleship, at least it'll be useful later on.
TT
Here interesting photo, USS Iowa BB-61, leading surface group, with old Pegasus-Class PHMs escorting.
(https://www.museumships.us/images/phocagallery/iowa/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l_cwtd6lq.jpg)
That was claimed ten years ago.(https://the-drive.imgix.net/http%3A%2F%2Fd254andzyoxz3f.cloudfront.net%2Fadmiral-kuznetsov1.jpg?w=1920&auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=js-1.4.1&s=13570786cddad94cd695fd829df204be)
However the missile tubes are over 50 meters forward of the hangar, and if they removed the tubes to "have more space for planes" that'd mean really major internal reconfiguration. Which, uh, no. They're probably empty - or the missiles rusted in place - but those tubes are probably still there.
(https://the-drive.imgix.net/http%3A%2F%2Fd254andzyoxz3f.cloudfront.net%2Fadmiral-kuznetsov1.jpg?w=1920&auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=js-1.4.1&s=13570786cddad94cd695fd829df204be)
Looking at this, the missile tubes are a little bit forward of the deck widening, and just aft of the ramp. Looking at that picture of Special K laid up, it looks like there's been work done in that area - it seems to be in the same spot as some of the "lighter colored rust" is. What it really is, I don't know; it may be that the missiles and launch systems were pulled while the structural components remain as a weight saving measure, but I don't see any sign of doors in that deck. I won't say they should be visible, but you'd expect to see some kind of coloration difference in the surface, between the cover of the hatch and the regular flight deck.
Guess the Brits are gonna be dealing with smokers on their porch in the future.
It is one right now. Remember, Kuznetsov has a battery of REALLY BIG anti-ship missiles. It's why the ship is classed as an Aviation Cruiser instead of a Carrier, and thus legally able to cross the Bosporus.Yes, that was in 2012, the SS-N-19 "Shipwreck" (P-700 Granit) were scheduled to be removed and MiG-29K were to replace the older planes. But then came the operations in the Levante and now the dock incident, so no one knows what's next.
Granted, trying to go halvsies like that seems be very detrimental to both sides. Kuznetsov is a huge ship, but with direct firepower on par with a cruiser(albeit a Russian one), and we all agree it sucks as a carrier. As I understand, even before all this damage there were plans to remove the missiles to improve the aviation capabilities.
We had an FFG cross the bight with the launcher removed, it didn't end well. :PYeah, Shipreck/Granit is a big bloody missile; 33 feet should punch a hole through four decks easily just for the missile alone. Add in all the blast deflection, structural mounts, and so on, I'd not be surprised if that box goes all the way to the waterline.
My eyes need a tetanus shot just looking at that thing.
Reminds me of Mack Maloney's Wingman Series.... of which the star of the series instigated a series of tugboats pushing and pulling a defunct Aircraft Carrier to launch across the Atlantic Ocean from America to the Mediterranean Sea.and somehow managed to operate a wing of non-naval aircraft off the catapults and traps on the thing.
i know the Admiral Kuznetsov's sister ship never had them installed, the Liaoning.
Which makes her a better ship, since she has no business to getting into ship-to-ship combat range! "Your a carrier! Getting focus carriering!"
Her aircraft wing was meant to give local air superiority. Her missiles were for taking out anything that came at her. In a sense, that makes her more of a defensive mobile "anti access" platform, rather than a strike weapon like US carriers are.
one does not win a war of attrition against civilian industry.
They were planning on using nucs. Thats not a war of attrition, even leaving out the strategic rocket forces.sure it is. that is an attrition speed run.
They were planning on using nucs. Thats not a war of attrition, even leaving out the strategic rocket forces.
Well, I read an interview with a former USSR officer back in the '90s. According to him the plan was to push the big red button in case they seemed to be losing...
Which matches the general idea of USSR military planning. When everyone else is planning to wipe you out there's no point in waiting!
It all seems superfluous in light of ICBMs, mindActually that is exactly what they were defending the seas for - protecting the SSBNs.
This the Kara Class Guided Missile Cruiser Kerch, she being accompanied by a older Kynda Missile Cruiser off the Starboard bow.
But as for pictures . . . apparently a replica of Cook's HMS Endeavor is sailing around the world.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/320/cpsprodpb/C2E6/production/_101849894_cag_hm_bark_arrives_whitby-006.jpg)
(http://www.yurtopic.com/society/people/images/captain-james-cook/Endeavour-Replica.jpg)
Article said a Maori tribe banned the ship from docking at one of their islands.
I thought the Klingons were off the starboard bow, Jim?
Nice shot of the Sov . . .
The Nuke arms race was not always about numbers, it was also a race to see who could put them on target fastest so the other side could not respond . . . nuke armed Tomahawks were a Soviet nightmare, partly b/c they could be launched in close ashore and partly b/c their NAP flying. If they could catch the Soviet C3 above ground they could vape the folks who could give orders to retaliate. Its also why Cuban and Turkey based missiles back in the 60s were contentious.
But as for pictures . . . apparently a replica of Cook's HMS Endeavor is sailing around the world.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/320/cpsprodpb/C2E6/production/_101849894_cag_hm_bark_arrives_whitby-006.jpg)
(http://www.yurtopic.com/society/people/images/captain-james-cook/Endeavour-Replica.jpg)
Article said a Maori tribe banned the ship from docking at one of their islands.
I've been onboard her, she's quite the sight let me tell you. The thing that surprised me was how low the deck heads were, apparently it's due to the structural strength of wood, far lower than steel (not a shock), and how long they had to spend at sea.
I've been onboard her, she's quite the sight let me tell you. The thing that surprised me was how low the deck heads were, apparently it's due to the structural strength of wood, far lower than steel (not a shock), and how long they had to spend at sea.It's mostly a strength and expense issue. When I went through USS Constellation last year, at 6'1", I didn't have an issue on the gun deck, but farther down, it got more cramped. The orlop deck above the hold was the worst.
It's mostly a strength and expense issue. When I went through USS Constellation last year, at 6'1", I didn't have an issue on the gun deck, but farther down, it got more cramped. The orlop deck above the hold was the worst.
That would explain it, Endeavour was a collier, not a warship, so no gun deck. :)
50th page! new names!