BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Off Topic and Technical Support => Off Topic => Topic started by: God and Davion on 01 November 2023, 13:03:00
-
With 100% more Rickover. Welcome back!
Link to the former thread:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,76275.1470.html
-
Which means we gotta start with Nautilus!
(https://i.redd.it/uyzova4nc7w21.jpg)
-
With a side of NR-1.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/87/ab/1c/87ab1ce5adfca05e51b80f7dd653fce7.jpg)
-
Soviet Alfa-class in the 80s
(https://imgur.com/u8pyDxM.jpg)
So far it's less "Underway on Nuclear Power" and more "Run silent, run deep" :laugh:
-
Reposting something from 8 years ago. o.O
Let's go nuclear! All the nuclear-powered surface combatant warships ever (there aren't that many). I'm not sure why, but the Polish and Portuguese wiki pages had much better photos of the Bainbridge and Truxtun than the English pages, even though the photos are from the US Navy
CGN-9 USS Long Beach. Quite a lot of change in armament over its lifetime. Also big (15,500 tonne displacement) and a huge crew (well over a thousand). No aviation complement either
Commissioned from 1961-1995. Unique design, as far as I can tell. It's similar to the Baltimore class (and the Albany and Boston-class guided missile conversions of same) in terms of displacement and crew. Definitely has a unique sci-fi vibe. I feel like it should have orange racing stripes or bright yellow and black camouflage and crew in tights with sealed helmets or something
(https://imgur.com/6i6cB5e.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/81xJLZR.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/zZIAN8j.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/2tSuJhj.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/NJE4VYs.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/ySNgjj5.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/39qEZNI.jpg)
CGN-25 USS Bainbridge. Size and complement are much more in line with other modern warships (9000 tonne displacement, 475 crew)
Commissioned from 1962-1996. Heavily modified nuclear version of the Leahy class. No helicopter complement
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/USS_Bainbridge_%28CGN-25%29_1986.jpg/1280px-USS_Bainbridge_%28CGN-25%29_1986.jpg)
CGN-35 USS Truxtun. It has a touch less displacement (8660 tonnes) and touch more crew (492) than the Bainbridge
Commissioned from 1967-1995. Heavily modified nuclear version of the Belknap class. Provision for 1 Seasprite helo
(https://imgur.com/SgREbR2.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/cLwXzwI.jpg)
California-class. No hangar, but has a landing deck. Displaced 10,600 tonnes with a crew of 580ish
CGN-36 USS California commissioned from 1974-1999
(https://imgur.com/1nCw6fX.jpg)
CGN-37 South Carolina commissioned from 1975-1999
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/USS_South_Carolina_CGN-37_04013712.jpg/1280px-USS_South_Carolina_CGN-37_04013712.jpg)
Virginia class. A bit shorter than the Californias and heavier (11,000 tonnes) with a much smaller crew (500) and adds a hangar for a single Seasprite
CGN-38 USS Virginia commissioned from 1976-1994
(https://imgur.com/F4LImiJ.jpg)
CGN-39 USS Texas commissioned from 1977-1993
(https://imgur.com/nXc2OOV.jpg)
CGN-40 USS Mississippi commissioned from 1978-1997
(https://imgur.com/juimiRq.jpg)
CGN-41 USS Arkansas commissioned from 1980-1998
(https://imgur.com/8dFLqjd.jpg)
All the Californias and Virginias sailing together:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/US_nuclear_powered_cruisers_underway_in_1981.JPEG/1280px-US_nuclear_powered_cruisers_underway_in_1981.JPEG)
Kirov class
Admiral Ushakov (ex-Kirov) laid up, awaiting disposal. Commissioned 1980-1990
(http://pics.livejournal.com/aramis7/pic/007xzp03)
Admiral Lazarev (ex-Frunze) laid up, awaiting disposal. Commissioned 1984-1999. Stars in THE iconic photo of the class
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Kirov-class_battlecruiser.jpg/1280px-Kirov-class_battlecruiser.jpg)
Admiral Nakhimov (ex-Kalinlin) Commissioned 1988, undergoing refit. Maybe because it had too many greebles for modern tastes and RCS
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/BCGN_Kalinin_1991.jpg/1280px-BCGN_Kalinin_1991.jpg)
Pyotr Velikiy (Peter the Great, ex-Yuri Andropov) Commissioned 1998, currently the only nuclear warship in service (not counting subs and carriers)
(https://imgur.com/J210Yr0.jpg)
-
How about moving cargo with Nuclear Power. The NS Savannah, the nuclear powered freighter, that didn't really work for reasons.
-
With the Virginia class, the helicopter hangar was in the hull, the only DLGN design to do so. The capability was deleted when the Armored Box Launchers were added.
My favorite never-were warship was the CSGN. Nuclear power, AEGIS, and 8" guns!
-
With the Virginia class, the helicopter hangar was in the hull, the only DLGN design to do so. The capability was deleted when the Armored Box Launchers were added.
My favorite never-were warship was the CSGN. Nuclear power, AEGIS, and 8" guns!
As I recall, the in-hull hangars always had issues with weather sealing. On the other hand, they can't be anywhere as steampunk as the system used on Udaloy-class destroyers that had some kind of weird convertible roof encapsulation for their Kamovs.
(https://imgur.com/NCRIYIC.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/1Z2ovsM.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/MoSVzXQ.jpg)
-
Those aren't hangars... those are storage cubicles... ;D
-
How about moving cargo with Nuclear Power. The NS Savannah, the nuclear powered freighter, that didn't really work for reasons.
What kind of reasons? We talking technology problems or political problems?
-
Money involves both of those things... ;)
-
Ah.
-
Money involves both of those things... ;)
Eh, I would put the blame in the same place as to why the US has not had a new civilian reactor in over 30 years, until this year.
-
From what I read it was to a significant degree politics (most nations didn't trust a floating reactor in regular ports), but economics was the killer - it was just a lot more expensive than diesels.
Building new ones today? Plausible, but the cost is still a major problem.
-
USS Gerald Ford CVN-78 on trials back in October, 2019
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=74052)
Love how she taking the turns, its must been interesting to be onboard her doing it.
-
USS Gerald Ford CVN-78 on trials back in October, 2019
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=74052)
Love how she taking the turns, its must been interesting to be onboard her doing it.
Is the helm station on the island? I can imagine a helmsman describing it as like driving the world's largest cigarette boat. Or maybe the Batmobile from the Burton films or The Animated Series
-
I've been aboard a carrier doing those kinds of trials... and yes, the helm is on the bridge in the island... ;)
-
Those aren't hangars... those are storage cubicles... ;D
Where is the "like" button?
-
tagging in
-
TAG'd
-
This would be the world's biggest target of hypersonic missiles if it were real...
-
Early Star Destroyer. Colourized 😂
-
This would be the world's biggest target of hypersonic missiles if it were real...
I'm sure that all the point-defense lasers would do an excellent job keeping it alive.
-
(https://i.redd.it/mqkummcqhg791.jpg)
To the right, the front half of November-class submarine K3, the first Soviet nuclear powered submarine. To the left, K-123, an Alfa class.
The Novembers were ... interesting. They had special quiet blades, quiet equipment mountings, and were the first subs with anechoic tiles, all of which didn't matter because their two water-filled reactors made more noise than an equivalent value of garbage trucks. They were meant to fire nuclear torpedos into NATO ports, and were originally intended to have 1x1m torpedo tube, and 2x more conventional 553mm tubes. K3 is shown above in 2006, prior to being put back in the water, and then moved to St Petersburg to a naval museum in 2021.
-
Yeah the HEN (Hotel, Echo and November classes) series of Russian nuclear boats were hella noisy, and the Alpha class at full chat was basically a boom box but under water and was amazingly loud at full speed.
Also looking at that hanger on the Udaloy, that's hella cramped and how the hell would you service it? I'd assume that any ordinance would be fitted on the helipad?
-
It does look like there is more space below on theUdaloy. I have no idea how much, but I 'd say at least basic maintenance is probably doable.
-
Curious how well they were able clean up the reactor space so people could safely enter the ship when it's made into a museum.
-
The a Alfa class is such a neat looking sub. The form fitting sail to the hull is so neat.
I also think I like the Alfa class becuase of the Hunt for Red October.
-
Yeah the HEN (Hotel, Echo and November classes) series of Russian nuclear boats were hella noisy,
The HEN series were also quite fast for their time, mainly because they skimped on reactor shielding.
-
The HEN series were also quite fast for their time, mainly because they skimped on reactor shielding.
Aye which comes with the issue of "Yes we can go fast, but how many cancers do you want to give to the crew if we open the taps?"
And whilst they could do high speeds, it was at a significant risk, so they rarely did them at full chat.
-
Aye which comes with the issue of "Yes we can go fast, but how many cancers do you want to give to the crew if we open the taps?"
Not that the above was actually a problem for the Red Navy.
-
This would be the world's biggest target of hypersonic missiles if it were real...
Nice
-
Interesting one, A Swedish Lätt trossbåt testing a 120 mm container based NEMO mortar.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=74075)
So this landing ship is essentially equipped with one these. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_NEMO) Patria NEMO artillery module, so it can be used with anything can have the container. Sort like module/omnipod self-powered if were BattleTech
-
6 rounds/minute fits BattleTech perfectly! ;)
-
Hmm... That weapon could arguably be represented fairly well by a BA Tube Artillery system. Call it 2.5 tons for the gun, 120 rounds/ton, and it comes in pretty close.
-
Won't Mech motors work? Mech Mortar/8 mounted on one those landing craft showed up in Technical Readout: Irregulars would work nicely.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/395189428_718164080346418_6919342392538621222_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=PJVG8dYlWikAX9YEZt1&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfB90Zv3yk17ZfyHMDS-MzJYhKS8PzwS1nRThfzaLHBFqA&oe=654AC0A2)
HMS Rodney
-
And why it was nicknamed "Rodnol"... the "-Ol" class Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers. Pictured here, RFA Ebonol, 1917-1950, with a brief stint in the IJN from 1942 to 1945.
(https://www.clydeships.co.uk/files/201407262020230.C%20Ebanol.jpg)
-
The Nelrods were always one of my favorite RN ships because they looked so different and whilst the class gets some stick for their speed and the 'light' 16-inch rounds they fired, their speed seems to have been quite deliberately understated.
In the Bismarck persuit the Rodney was hitting 25 knots, heading towards 26 with her engines being forced, but that's still 3 knots above their rated speed. And the hit the Rodney scored on the Bismarck was probably one of the most devastating naval gunnery hits ever scored which didn't result in a ship exploding immediately and her 'light' 16-inch rounds were more than enough to punch through the Bismarck's armor.
-
The Romanian Navy's Smârdan-class river monitors, when you want dakka you get dakka.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=74120)
-
What's it got in those side turrets?
-
Tank turret 100 mm (3.9 in) gun
1 × Twin 30 mm guns
2 × Quad 14.5 mm machine guns
2 × Twin (14.5mm+7.62mm) machine
-
That'll mess up someone's day.
-
Why would anyone mix MG calibers in a single mount? ???
-
Why would anyone mix MG calibers in a single mount? ???
If you look at the photo, its 2 turrets from the BRDM-2/BTR-60/70/80 series vehicles. The turret was indeed armed with a 14.5mm MG & 7.62 coaxial MG. Probably done because it was cheaper to do off-the-shelf components than develop something new. Bet the gun is simply a D-10 from the T-54/55 too.
Damon.
-
Still a bad reason not to have a pair of 14.5s...
-
Why would anyone mix MG calibers in a single mount? ???
Main gun and co-ax. HMG + GPMG is a pretty common turret armament for a number of armoured cars too.
There usually aren't too many problems on the ground that can't be solved by one HMG, but can be solved with two, so the rifle-calibre co-ax adds flexibility. It might also be preferable from an ammo endurance and rate of fire standpoint - given the size and weight of HMG ammunition, maybe it's best if it isn't firing at 800 RPM or more like an MG3 with a light bolt or FN MAG with the gas port on full open.
Generally the only use case where more guns of the same kind are used is anti-aircraft work where maximum lead in the air ASAP is the goal.
-
European AAW ships (and Australia, because the Hobarts are a F100 subclass). I noticed that there are several commonalities:
Planar radars get put on the mast above the bridge instead of below it like US and Chinese designs prefer to do. There are supposed to be range/radar horizon and center of gravity advantages to doing so, but they do look like they have huge foreheads. The other thing in common that I noticed is that all of the designs only have a single forward VLS system typically providing 48 cells or so. The similar displacement Type 052D has 64 larger cells and splits some of them to a midships location. Burkes and derivative designs put the second VLS system aft, between the helicopter hangars.
British Type 45-class destroyer HMS Daring
(https://imgur.com/rmgQIxQ.jpg)
Australian Hobart-class destroyer HMAS Sydney (based on the Spanish Álvaro de Bazán-class frigates, aka F100s)
(https://imgur.com/Lpd5jf5.jpg)
Spanish Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate Álvaro de Bazán
(https://imgur.com/W5UtnZF.jpg)
Italian Horizon-class destroyer Andrea Doria
(https://imgur.com/8kH47xU.jpg)
French Horizon-class frigate (I don't think the French navy really had a designation really equivalent to destroyer) Chevalier Paul exercising with a visiting PLAN flotilla near Toulon ~2017
(https://imgur.com/RLt9qVE.jpg)
Dutch De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën
(https://imgur.com/dr6TNbr.jpg)
-
I think the Horizons are some of my favorite ships afloat today. :)
-
I'm just unsure about the capability of the firing arcs for the 76mm guns on them. If it's time for shells, it's best to get as many mounts as possible on target.
-
I'm just unsure about the capability of the firing arcs for the 76mm guns on them. If it's time for shells, it's best to get as many mounts as possible on target.
I imagine it's for things like getting swarmed by small boats although given how wide apart they are, I don't think the ship has to be too oblique to allow both guns to fire on a target. Note the Italian version puts a third gun on top of the hangar. My guess is that one generally only has its ready-magazine available and reloading that might be a bit of a hassle.
The Italians consistently want that rear big gun too, but instead of moving to a midship helipad like other other 70s and 80s designs (the Spruance, Kidd, Ticonderoga, and Sovremenny classes all use midship hangars/helipads ahead of the rear gun/missile launchers), they've plopped the rear gun on the hangar roof on several classes, which... makes sense, because they also use it as their rear CIWS and on top of the hangar is where other navies put things like Phalanx or RAM missile launchers (or analogues)
Their Horizons, but also the Durand de la Penne-class
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Durand_de_la_Penne_D560.jpg/1024px-Durand_de_la_Penne_D560.jpg)
But also their versions of the FREMM
General-purpose (Luigi Rizzo)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Joint_Warrior_17-2_%2836740993474%29.jpg/1024px-Joint_Warrior_17-2_%2836740993474%29.jpg)
ASW (Virginio Fasan)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Fasan_Virginio_%28F_591%29_03_%40chesi.JPG/1024px-Fasan_Virginio_%28F_591%29_03_%40chesi.JPG)
-
Also, it's interesting to see surface warships change over time on where to put the helipad, hangar, guns, and missile systems.
Over time, the consensus seems to be front gun, front VLS, front CIWS, aft hangar with aft CIWS on top, stern helipad, no rear gun. Rear VLS seems split between midship between hangar and superstructure where older designs might put their anti-ship missile cannisters (Type 052D, Type 055, some of the European proposals for AAW destroyers) and inside the hangar structure (Burke, Sejong the Great, Maya, Atago).
Burke Flight I/II and Kongo classes are an aberration in not having a hangar at all.
But before that, you see experiments like swapping the position of the (non-VLS) missile launchers with the gun (Virginias put the gun behind the missile launchers), no guns at all (Leahy-class), rear gun only (Belknap-class), midship guns (USS Long Beach), elevators/underdeck hangar (Virginia-class again), midship helipad and hangar forward of the rear missiles/gun (Spruance, Kidd, Tico, Sovremenny), midship gun on top of the superstructure (Oliver Hazard Perry)
It's easy to see why some of those layouts weren't adopted too. The Long Beach guns must have had a fairly narrow field of fire. The elevators on the Virginia-class supposedly suffered from leak issues their entire life. And the mid-ships layouts required a high helipad and hangar, which couldn't have helped the already-high center of gravity of ships that already had a lot of superstructure to deal with.
-
Long Beach's guns were an afterthought in design. The ship had weight and volume reserved for a strategic weapon, originally Regulus cruise missile, later Polaris, that was never fitted. Space was there for the ASROC launcher, and there was plenty still there, so the 5"/38s would fit.
For helicopters, basically once the utility of them was realized, everyone started putting them on ships, and the right spot was found by trial and error. The Burkes are an anomaly, but my SWAG is they lacked helicopter hangars to avoid competition with the Ticonderogas that were finishing up construction.
-
Long Beach's guns were an afterthought in design. The ship had weight and volume reserved for a strategic weapon, originally Regulus cruise missile, later Polaris, that was never fitted. Space was there for the ASROC launcher, and there was plenty still there, so the 5"/38s would fit.
For helicopters, basically once the utility of them was realized, everyone started putting them on ships, and the right spot was found by trial and error. The Burkes are an anomaly, but my SWAG is they lacked helicopter hangars to avoid competition with the Ticonderogas that were finishing up construction.
I'm more interested in the fact that they managed to shoehorn in the hangars on the Flight IIA/III Burkes without effectively adding extra length. It does make me wonder if the VLS is still in the old location, with the top flush with the deck and the 'VLS' space between the hangars is just an empty passthrough, or if the VLS system was elevated to be flush with the hangar roof, raising CoG, but also freeing up space underneath/allowing for longer cells.
I think the 'right spot' for helipads (right at the stern) was known for a long time. Helipad-only ships almost always had it right at the stern, and ASW frigates like the Brooke and Garcia classes used that layout (and had organic helos) all the way back to the early 60s.
My assumption was that it was more of a firepower consideration and allowing for rear fields of fire for missile launchers and guns and possibly a division of responsibilities. US destroyers don't get helos until Spruance and cruisers get it with the Virginias, and both projects were contemporaries.
Even with the original Burke, there might have still been an expectation for reloading the VLS at sea, which seems to be something you have to give up entirely on when moving to a superstructure-mounted VLS (IIRC, at-sea reloading never worked out well, but given when the Burkes were designed, they may have been initially designed with that in mind)
-
I like the look of the Australian Hobart-class destroyer and the Spanish Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate
The look like value discount version of the US Burke Destoryers, but still very capable ships.
I was on a tour of the Norfolk Navy base when the Italian FREMM visiting I guess the US Navy liked it so much and are turning into the FFG Constellation Class, so that is pretty neat.
-
Tag
-
The European nations have always been able to make good corvettes... :)
-
Had to adjust the photo, but here is the Italian FREMM at Norfolk when I was there.
-
Foch and Clemenceau sailing together in 1977
(https://i.redd.it/pu74iwvbdvt31.jpg)
-
Foch and Clemenceau sailing together in 1977
What are the white and red planes on the prow of one of the carriers?
-
What are the white and red planes on the prow of one of the carriers?
Going by the V-tail, I'd say Fouga Zephyr :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouga_CM.175_Z%C3%A9phyr
-
Foch and Clemenceau sailing together in 1977
Wow, that's damn sweet - nice pic.
-
What are the white and red planes on the prow of one of the carriers?
Fouga CM.170 Magister trainers, I think.
Damon.
-
The Horrors of "modifications" , Modified Gearing-class destroyer USS Carpenter (DDK-825).
The ship was essentially experimented with since by the 1950s rival Navies were essentially not ocean going (yet). The focus was on anti-submarine & anti-air. Frankly only thing I like on this ship was the bridge. There were further mods, essentially leading to the FRAM program. I'm not sure if this ship was being used for that development. She got her 5 forward incher back in later refits.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=74193)
She survived until 1997 in Turkish service as TCG Anittepe (D-347) and then scrapped in 1999.
-
PING.
while relocating my office and stuff due to reflooring the house, I came across some really neat framed photos of Tomahawk testing and some 1960s boomers.
Now trying to figure how best to scan the photos for online display.
-
Cool! I hope we get to see them soon! :)
-
Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class air defence frigate, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Huitfeldt-class_frigate HDMS Iver Huitfeldt (F361). Pretty chonky ships - 6500 tonnes displacement and almost 140m long with a fairly small crew of 165. Some kind of single-barrel 35mm CIWS over the hangar at the back, and superfiring OTO Melara 3-inchers on the bow
(https://imgur.com/DmeHdq1.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/3xaClbN.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/UjO9sxV.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/xdyhkIl.jpg)
-
No missiles??
-
No missiles??
They're all located midships between radar mast and the funnel. 32-cell Mk. 41 VLS and 4x Stanflex positions immediately forward of the Mk. 41. Each StanFlex position can accept a number of modules, but the most common are either a Harpoon cannisters or a Mk. 56 ESSM VLS
24x ESSM, 16x Harpoons
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Danish_frigate_KDM_Niels_Juel_%28F363%29_underway_in_the_Red_Sea_on_15_April_2019_%28190415-N-IL409-0016%29.JPG/2560px-Danish_frigate_KDM_Niels_Juel_%28F363%29_underway_in_the_Red_Sea_on_15_April_2019_%28190415-N-IL409-0016%29.JPG)
The center 32 cells are the Mk. 41. The things flanking it are two of the Stanflex positions. In this case, those are ESSM modules (the cylinders are exhausts for the cells) and each of the red-topped rectangular things is a single ESSM (the two combined taking up a single Mk. 57 VLS cell) and in this picture, only 2 ESSMs are loaded. If you look at the above picture, you'll see a full load of ESSMs flanking the exhaust pipes.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/WUkN02eQtozXdxr0xzyI65iVFwrYbnTAGkjk4wGJGkY.jpg?auto=webp&s=c66d2d61d069344379ca3ca309d66071324cf828)
I think it's something about the modular VLS that it's only semi-below decks.
(https://i.imgur.com/wuej8xE.jpeg)
So a 100% AAW loadout would be something like 32x SM2-IIIA Standards + 48 ESSMs. It's a little less throw weight than a Type 45 or Hobart, but it's pretty close and the Danes managed to get a really good price on it by basing it on the work done on the older Absalon-class which didn't have the Mk. 41 and went with all-Stanflex modules instead.
-
No missiles??
per wikipedia:
32-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launching System for up to 32 SM-2 IIIA surface-to-air missiles
12 × Mk.56 VLS fitting 24 RIM-162 ESSM
8 × Harpoon Block II SSM
Stanflexs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex) mounts, allowing for: Either additional 12 Mk.56 VLS (for a total 48 ESSMs) Or additional 8 inclined launchers (for a total of 16 Harpoons)
2 × OTO Melara 76 mm mainguns
1 × Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm Naval Revolver Gun System CIWS
2 × dual MU90 Impact ASW torpedo launchers
so it has a fairly heft VLS missile loadout, with a mix of SM-2's and sea sparrows.
-
Missiles are mounted midships
-
Didn't see them in the original pics, thanks all! :)
-
JMSDF dropping the Destroyer Escort category (and probably 'DD' as well) in favour of the frigate designation. I know I wondered why they were FFM in the last thread, but it instead of FFG but it seems like the first six ships are commissioning without VLS, but are fitted for minelaying
Mogami-class
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/JS_Mogami%EF%BC%88FFM-1%EF%BC%898.jpg/1024px-JS_Mogami%EF%BC%88FFM-1%EF%BC%898.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/%E6%B5%B7%E4%B8%8A%E8%87%AA%E8%A1%9B%E9%9A%8A_%E8%AD%B7%E8%A1%9B%E8%89%A6%E3%82%82%E3%81%8C%E3%81%BF_FFM-1.3.jpg/1024px-%E6%B5%B7%E4%B8%8A%E8%87%AA%E8%A1%9B%E9%9A%8A_%E8%AD%B7%E8%A1%9B%E8%89%A6%E3%82%82%E3%81%8C%E3%81%BF_FFM-1.3.jpg)
You can make out the rear hatches for minelaying/boat operations and for the towed array sonar under the helipad
(https://imgur.com/Zw4DtHA.jpg)
They've also been showing models of the supposed successor 'New FFM' project at the Indopacific 2023 expo. https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2023/2023/11/mitsubishi-shows-air-warfare-frigate-for-jmsdf/ About the size of the Danish frigate and with a heavier AAW focus
(https://imgur.com/YZ4wmum.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/f4BEDcU.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/p8SlJRs.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/l4CJpts.jpg)
-
I get the lack of a main deck for RCS reduction, but it just makes ships look so ugly... :P
-
The ships are so less cluttered over a US ships. The Constellation FFGs being built are very not stealthy.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/402165939_728490509313775_6162902192362996572_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=Sq3I3OkeZWwAX8ZpBBU&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfCJOp28AHYiBPnVk8itYMuavid3coBFv9SgjOTShlJ8sw&oe=655DE253)
Mothballed ships at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton, Washington, in August 1992.
Hornet (CVS-12) with three minesweepers is on the left, New Jersey (BB-62) with two Knox-class frigates is on the right.
-
The ships are so less cluttered over a US ships. The Constellation FFGs being built are very not stealthy.
Something about US Navy requirements seems to require the big cluttered mast compared to other contemporary designs. Even the small, ostensibly stealthy LCS designs have fairly busy masts, even when compared to big AAW destroyers like the Type 45, Type 055, or the Iver Huitfeldt-class and Mogami-class frigates I posted earlier.
The Zumwalts seem to have their antennae farm better shrouded, but those ships also have that massive superstructure. I do wonder about the impact of high crosswinds on that.
Zumwalts
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/160324-N-DM751-001_%2826282375621%29.jpg/1024px-160324-N-DM751-001_%2826282375621%29.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/210421-N-FC670-1062.jpg/1024px-210421-N-FC670-1062.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/USS_Michael_Monsoor_%28DDG_1001%29_moored_at_Pearl_Harbor_2022.jpg/1024px-USS_Michael_Monsoor_%28DDG_1001%29_moored_at_Pearl_Harbor_2022.jpg)
Type 45
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Royal_Navy_Type_45_Destroyer_HMS_Dragon_MOD_45153124.jpg/1024px-Royal_Navy_Type_45_Destroyer_HMS_Dragon_MOD_45153124.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Type_45_Destroyer_HMS_Daring_in_Heavy_Seas_MOD_45153837.jpg/1024px-Type_45_Destroyer_HMS_Daring_in_Heavy_Seas_MOD_45153837.jpg)
Not sure if it's just area of operations or what, but most Type 055 images I find are of hull 101, Nanchang
(https://imgur.com/o2yNDfE.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/4UtEhDl.jpg)
A seriously weathered USS Coronado (decommissioned last year)
(https://imgur.com/OBgkDfm.jpg)
-
LCS-2 class is unpainted, and just left the aluminum to weather. I'm not sure about why, as I've never been to San Diego or LCSRON1
-
The Zumwalt's will look better when they get rid of the useless gun turrets and more VLS for hypersonic missiles.
-
Are they hypersonic Missiles actually as useful? They're type Strategic weapon, they've not (hopefully won't) seen combat aside of the Russians.
Frankly converting the Zumwalts to be able fire weapon (not publicly) not been fleshed out yet seems foolish to me. It would make them just as semi-useful ships. Eventually, US and it's allies will have hypersonic weapons, but there no sign of them right now. Most weapons that been noted so far, have been air launched ones. I'm puzzled what missile is intended to be used, since none been shown to be ship launch capable as of this moment I can find.
-
Are they hypersonic Missiles actually as useful? They're type Strategic weapon, they've not (hopefully won't) seen combat aside of the Russians.
Frankly converting the Zumwalts to be able fire weapon (not publicly) not been fleshed out yet seems foolish to me. It would make them just as semi-useful ships. Eventually, US and it's allies will have hypersonic weapons, but there no sign of them right now. Most weapons that been noted so far, have been air launched ones. I'm puzzled what missile is intended to be used, since none been shown to be ship launch capable as of this moment I can find.
wouldn't be the first time they were engineered to make use of a weapon that only existed on paper. the main reason they're discussing adding VLS cells and such is because the Advanced Gun system it was designed to carry never got off the ground. at least with the VLS cells, the design should be adaptable to fire conventional cruise missiles, heavy antiship missiles, and perhaps even clusters of Standard Missiles.
my understanding is that they're adapting the modular payload system off the BlockIII and Block IV virginia class subs for it, and the Block V virginia's with the stretched hull and extra payload module mounts amidships are meant to carry the same missiles. the current virginia's can use those payload mounts for carrying seven Tomahawks per mount, and potentially SLBM's. if so, fitting a few of them to the Zumwalts will let them be a lot more flexible.. and i have no doubt that the USN can work up some versions which can carry SM series missiles or even sea sparrows they can slot into the payload silos.
-
I thought the Navy was trying to find ways to equip more ships with guns due to them being cheaper on the ammo budget than missiles.
-
wouldn't be the first time they were engineered to make use of a weapon that only existed on paper. the main reason they're discussing adding VLS cells and such is because the Advanced Gun system it was designed to carry never got off the ground. at least with the VLS cells, the design should be adaptable to fire conventional cruise missiles, heavy antiship missiles, and perhaps even clusters of Standard Missiles.
my understanding is that they're adapting the modular payload system off the BlockIII and Block IV virginia class subs for it, and the Block V virginia's with the stretched hull and extra payload module mounts amidships are meant to carry the same missiles. the current virginia's can use those payload mounts for carrying seven Tomahawks per mount, and potentially SLBM's. if so, fitting a few of them to the Zumwalts will let them be a lot more flexible.. and i have no doubt that the USN can work up some versions which can carry SM series missiles or even sea sparrows they can slot into the payload silos.
Yeah the modular payload system will allow them to fire any missile in the inventory, you could even have them firing HIMARS rockets or ATACMS and its replacement if needed, and this will probably be rolled out across the fleet.
-
Gun ammo gets real expensive real fast when you start strapping rocket propulsion and guidance packages to the shells...
-
I think the VLS tubes that will replace the Guns on the Zumwalt will be configurable for either the Hypersonic weapons or standard VLS tubes for whatever wants the need is. The new DDG-X is supposed to have that modification, and the Block 5 Virgina SSN will have that too. Hypersonic weapons might be the next big thing. Russians and China are further down the Hypersonic deployment road than the US and the west. Remember the Rail Gun was a thing....until it wasn't
The Advanced Gun System guided ammo ended up costing more than a TLAM and way less capable. I guess the guided rounds in the 155 howitzers tech couldn't transfer to the 155mm of the AGS.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/402086071_729517305877762_3867796878237842462_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=v2ETyDA2e9wAX_EJve-&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBb4BI2bfNmJwi96qQHPZKUn2zbSt8JB_fSrI35F11glQ&oe=655F20BF)
The German Kaiser-class dreadnought battleship SMS Prinzregent Luitpold being towed back to Rosyth, keel uppermost.
This is one of many German ships sunk by her crew in Scapa Flow in 1919 after the fleet had surrendered in November 1918.
Although they were scuttled to prevent Allied Forces from using the vessels, some were salvaged and used for scrap metal to manufacture British armaments.
-
That's quite a feat for 1919!
-
I guess the guided rounds in the 155 howitzers tech couldn't transfer to the 155mm of the AGS.
they could have, but apparently the navy wanted some features on the AGS's reloading system that prevented the ammo from being cross compatible. basically its man flaw was the AGS would have required proprietary ammunition not compatible with anything else in nato.
-
they could have, but apparently the navy wanted some features on the AGS's reloading system that prevented the ammo from being cross compatible. basically its man flaw was the AGS would have required proprietary ammunition not compatible with anything else in nato.
The range was a lot shorter, I think the Army Version has a range of 25 miles, and the AGS wanted a 100 miles.
-
That definitely requires strapping rockets to the shell...
-
They were better off trying to use an navalized version of the regular artillery guns. They had extend ranged shells. We won't know until 2025 how the launchers will be like, since that's when Zumwalt is due be completed.
-
The longest range I can find for a "standard" 155 seems to be 70 km. Latest version of Excalibur round supposedly.
-
Gun ammo gets real expensive real fast when you start strapping rocket propulsion and guidance packages to the shells...
Aye but lethality goes up, you'd probably only need one shell to hit say a specific building or radar facility etc. Experience recently has shown how accurate the https://www.militarytoday.com/artillery/vulcano.htm shell is, able to hit very specific targets at extreme range in a modern battlefield environment.
-
Technically speaking, the Iowas supposedly had such shells, rock propelled ones. They were sub-caliber, like 11 inches. I've never found much about them in use.
I'd image they wreck havoc in the barrels though.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/404321268_732469492249210_6527125493570546357_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=oDcgAMZFRa8AX_IvzqF&_nc_oc=AQm65EzhjtkcJR7emutD9fqfl7IshuxEvtC0rB7FXXW0UlzCI6uaonJa3UkaBir69wU&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfCoCFPeMoerZbY0WHrh5H-7n2T6p_TS8pdf370w_4FEMQ&oe=656464FE)
USS Sable (IX-81) moored in the icy waters of Lake Michigan at the Chicago Navy Pier in 1945.
USS Sable and USS Wolverine (IX-64) were Great Lakes sidewheel steamers converted into training carriers. They trained scores of naval aviators in carrier takeoffs and landings operating in the Great Lakes.
-
Lordy, I wish one of those ships had been preserved. I really do. I know it was not to be, they'd would end up going poof once they went back to their original owners once the war was over.
-
The Sable and the Wolverine were pretty old to start. But yes would have been nice to be saved.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/404161087_732477438915082_3552791644731841870_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=xJQPfc_8WA4AX8N4meV&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAgWVQkZKLfi5QYLhjRTXvkoq-2Q7Nuy2MRGX9FTyTzUg&oe=656625F6)
USS Arizona, then one of the largest and newest of Uncle Sam's sea fighters passing out to sea under the Brooklyn Bridge on her first voyage since being put in commission.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/402054015_253457424405461_7674037698166185344_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=aQzl-DNmxLwAX9NpU8A&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfAppsmDXlgdrMxakikoroh7rWM1W8wGr96A1hKymhw7VQ&oe=6565B596)
USS Tennessee (BB-43) and the bow section of USS California (BB-44) at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, summer 1946
-
Sexy ship
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/405340564_256285564122647_789822628994935705_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=JQJd7_MP1a8AX-KJ900&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfDcFkYUa0H8Vvi_v3Eg_VQActwFgMWakB4BWIVQBfSqYg&oe=6565F6C8)
Radio controlled Coastal Battleship Number 4 (formerly USS Iowa BB-4) bracketed by a salvo from USS Mississippi (BB-41) during Fleet Problem I, off the Panama Canal Zone, 1923
-
I find it amazing they could remote control something like that, that far back. Especially the level tech that went into that.
-
I find it amazing they could remote control something like that, that far back. Especially the level tech that went into that.
thinking about the technology of the time it's probably easier to control something that BIG, than something small and light, if you don't think so, consider that this was long, long, long before Transistors and microelectronics. Ships had Radio rooms, not radio sets or chassis, but actual ROOMS to run basic communications and direction finding, there was no such thing as integrated circuits, and vacuum tubes were used to control the direction of electrons. thus, macro-voltages, not micro-voltages, which weould be easier to power on a ship, than, for instance, a tracked vehicle.
-
I'm mostly wondering how the boilers were managed. They couldn't have stokers on board after all!
-
According to the wikipedia article (which the picture sent me to last night), they fitted the ship with oil burners for this.
-
Of course. Should have realized that.
-
According to the wikipedia article (which the picture sent me to last night), they fitted the ship with oil burners for this.
The oil burners make sense, it was the remote control in 1924 which I thought was unique.
-
Here another one from book of Makeshift Marine Vessels.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=74349)
This picture from 1951 of a Mk 6 LCM landing ships converted into a river monitor for patrol on the Mekong River.
Essentially a turrets taken off of WWII British Coventry armored cars and modified,coaxial gun was changed to a MG 151 from BESA. It was recently posted on Reddit.
-
The oil burners make sense, it was the remote control in 1924 which I thought was unique.
Absolutely. It must have been quite the engineering feat to rebuild it for radio control 100 years ago.
By the way, Coastal Battleship Number 4's radio control ship has a pretty interesting story, too. USS Shawmut (later USS Oglala (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Oglala)) started life as a civilian steamer, got rebuilt as a mine layer prior to WW1, participated in both Word Wars (got sunk at Pearl Harbor and refloated, as well). And between the wars she participated as an observer on the US bombing of U-117 and served as radio control ship.
Here she is in glorious WW1 dazzle camo, serving in the North Sea:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.VcL0YBu7H02ecJDO6dpMhwEsDY%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=9553557d284b0686face09e446204bf038efe9e6b46604c883fc5f6d5dfc3ce3&ipo=images)
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/405340564_256285564122647_789822628994935705_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=JQJd7_MP1a8AX-KJ900&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfDcFkYUa0H8Vvi_v3Eg_VQActwFgMWakB4BWIVQBfSqYg&oe=6565F6C8)
Radio controlled Coastal Battleship Number 4 (formerly USS Iowa BB-4) bracketed by a salvo from USS Mississippi (BB-41) during Fleet Problem I, off the Panama Canal Zone, 1923
Colt,
Where are you hosting your pictures at please? They never show up for me and I can't figure out which of my security settings is blocking them!
-
My mouseover seems to indicate Facebook...
-
That's why I attach the pictures (reduce them to 600KB ) and link them to the post after attaching.
-
My mouseover seems to indicate Facebook...
I don't even see links unless I try to quote the post, but hosting on Facebook would explain it - I can't avoid FB altogether so I've got it locked down to its own containerised tab on the odd occasion I need to go there.
I'll play with settings a bit, but I might need to start reading this thread in a more disposable browser.
-
Had a story on the USS New Orleans (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-us-navy-warship-held-together-with-coconut-logs-after-a-japanese-torpedo-strike-once-sailed-hundreds-of-miles-in-reverse-to-reach-safe-harbor/ar-AA1kRc6b) pop up in my MSN feed today, about the aftermath of the Battle of Tassafaronga, where they lost the ship's bow, patched it with coconut trees, then sailed home in reverse to get a new bow put on.
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1kRgQF.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
Which, of course, might remind you all of the classic Clarke and Dawe skit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM).
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/405360827_259544823796721_766880512095918714_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=_z33jlmgg4gAX--sJkg&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfBKVmjL6vuycc05Bomzeyc8sH_ey1yqINQ5NURRONUNVA&oe=657005BC)
"It's been a long road, getting from there to here. It's been a long time, but my time is finally near." USS Enterprise from when after she was just launched in October 3, 1936 to her last voyage and being tugged to the scrapper in August 21, 1958
Yeah, FB . . . "some how" they know I like warship pictures.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/405360827_259544823796721_766880512095918714_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=_z33jlmgg4gAX--sJkg&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfBKVmjL6vuycc05Bomzeyc8sH_ey1yqINQ5NURRONUNVA&oe=657005BC)
"It's been a long road, getting from there to here. It's been a long time, but my time is finally near." USS Enterprise from when after she was just launched in October 3, 1936 to her last voyage and being tugged to the scrapper in August 21, 1958
Yeah, FB . . . "some how" they know I like warship pictures.
Just think, what I consider the MVP of the War in the Pacific, and if she had been a day or so earlier in coming to port (when she was supposed to have arrived; she was delayed by the weather), or if the attack on Pearl Harbor had been a day or so later, and she likely would have been sunk during the attack.
And she did lose some planes (several dive bombers, and a few fighters later after the attack; some to the attackers, some to friendly fire) during the attack anyways.
Ruger
-
It is too bad that the Enterprise couldn't be saved as a Museum Ship.
-
So in Godzilla Minus One, there's a scene where a Japanese cruiser is firing its guns at Godzilla while Godzilla is grabbing the ship. That got me wondering- did naval guns in WW2 have a minimum range before the shell would arm, or were they live the moment they left the barrel?
-
I'm not aware of minimum arming distance for large calibre naval shells, but if AP shells hit anything less solid/hard than several inches of hardened armour it was not uncommon for them to simply punch through and out the other side without the bursting charge detonating. It actually made smaller/unarmoured ships like DDs and AMCs surprisingly hard to sink with larger shells.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/405280294_746306150662277_8295747742496222714_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=c42490&_nc_ohc=zJVJ1Pza5PoAX-5gSdH&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfAH-ObojuFM4h2vhKCZNqVHrYBdx6AomcWj30rp9DgFCQ&oe=6570403C)
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/406132168_735908975238595_3512341776305416254_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=M_4IMQFf5PcAX_EUQy_&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBKTR9zslrvz3IDyWjVyq-UVR6ZTin71VTTPYoY9ypM0g&oe=6570243D)
The battleship USS Wisconsin (BB-64) and a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser (either USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55) or USS San Jacinto (CG-56)) sit at anchor in the harbor during the fourth annual Fleet Week activities, 1991.
-
I'm not aware of minimum arming distance for large calibre naval shells, but if AP shells hit anything less solid/hard than several inches of hardened armour it was not uncommon for them to simply punch through and out the other side without the bursting charge detonating. It actually made smaller/unarmoured ships like DDs and AMCs surprisingly hard to sink with larger shells.
Yeah, I remember that was one of the things that contributed to the US forces winning the Battle of Leyte Gulf because the armor-piercing shells that the Japanese ships were firing (because they were expecting to be facing battleships) tended to go through the tiny US destroyers, destroyer escorts, and escort carriers without causing excessive damage.
In the film, the shells are shown exploding as they hit Godzilla from mere tens of meters, but of course it's Godzilla so all they do is make him mad.
-
IIRC, the shock of firing arms the fuses. For AP shells, the shock of hitting the target triggers a short delay fuse.
And again IIRC, the British in WW1 had the opposite problem - the shock of impact triggering the explosive load directly (Lyddite?), and 'soft' armor-piercing caps causing most heavy calibre shells to explode on impact, on the outside, and failing to damage anything.
-
What ship is she?
-
What ship is she?
In the movie? The Takao (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Takao_(1930)#In_Popular_Culture). Though the movie takes place in 1947 (after a prologue in 1945), a year after the Takao was sunk in real life.
-
bringing over a discussion that started in the aviation thread but really belongs here, being naval.
35 and rainy is shorts, a windbreaker and scarf for me these days. The worst I've experienced is dry dock in winter at Groton, CT. I gave up my rack and retreated to the wardroom (which had a portable heater blowing into it). The bench wasn't really comfortable, but that little bit of extra heat made ALL the difference... When the steam's out, boats are COLD.
A big mass of metal sitting in cold water? That makes sense.
Worse... a big mass of metal sitting in the cold air for weeks on end.
It certainly puts all those 19th Century Northwest Passage explorers getting iced-in into perspective. A large mass of wood in even colder weather for months is almost certainly hellish!
No matter what, cold is cold. I feel for you guys. I wouldn't want to be on a boat or ship for a long period regardless of the weather. :wink:
Wood doesn't conduct cold as readily as metal does, but yeah. Especially since due to the flammability of wooden ships there were typical serious restrictions on fires.
Indeed. The point is, being on a ship in cold weather is probably unfortunate.
IIRC several of the later ones had steam engines aboard. not to run propulsion, but to generate hot water in the boiler, which would be circulated through pipes around the ship to keep things warm. and to help cook hot beverages and food.
didn't help the Franklin expedition in the long run though.
That's because the pipes were lead.
So was the canned food.
The lead soldering of the tin cans was exponentially worse than the lead pipes, whose danger is grossly overstated anyway, as lead pipes wouldn't leak more than trace amounts in the lifetime of user and that is not taking into account mineral buildup in the pipes.
Lead pipes, and lead solder, weren't the problem. Lead doesn't dissolve easily in water. The problem is mild acids. Consider that the Romans used lead cups to hold wine & drink wine out of, and lead bowls to boil down unfermented grape juice. Both lead to the formation of lead carbonate, which dissolved easily, and had a pleasant sweet taste of its own which the Romans liked.
SO depending on what was in the tin, this may not have been a problem. Early tins weren't tin - they were iron, and rusted, which was bad for the food inside. So they gave it a 'wash' of tin, which prevented rusting - but if you dented the can, this broke the layer, which led to the iron underneath rusting, and the food spoiling. Remember, fellow oldies, being told not to pick dented cans? That's the memory of that.
Cans now are steel (which doesn't rust unless badly made, or badly treated), or aluminium (which doesn't rust due to forming a protective layer of oxide.) Either way, denting a modern can lightly is not a risk.
the biggest issue the franklin expedition had was how sloppily the soldering on their canned goods was.. a lot of the stuff went bad with botulism, and the lead poisoning issue has been found to be over-estimated in later scientific studies of the remains found. though that was largely because trace lead in stuff was all too common at the time, so the amount they were getting from their canned goods probably wasn't much worse than the amounts they were getting before the expedition. the level and isotope ratios didn't support the hypothesis that they were poisoned by the lead solder.
their biggest issue was apparently one or more of the crew had Tuberculosis (which was also fairly common at the time, sadly), and it spread after they got stuck in the ice. probably because of suppressed immune systems.. all the remains that were found and studied showed extreme zinc deficiency, which combined with the conditions and lousy diet would have meant they'd have had trouble fighting off infections. in fact the recent studies point to these health issues as being part of why it seemed like the lead was the culprit.. between the illnesses and starvation, their bodies were breaking their own fat and muscle down, releasing any stored lead in the process.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/406465638_261764766908060_2627046371896859481_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=L73OAvGo4NUAX9Ce3mH&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfCngYBv36vbz-WjP3ZQfJkyKO_bX_1xCnHvDZvRQLEYhw&oe=6573CC6B)
USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95) loading Douglas SBD Dauntless Dive bombers from a barge, 1944.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/405282447_738197695009723_3755976199610749006_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=4xFZyl6iwTsAX-rkBFq&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfByyYPXGw6iyrIf_v6Uj4I9I9YVbBCozadUNBf1f9i2zA&oe=6574236F)
Japanese ocean liner Tatsuta Maru transiting as a repatriation ship, as seen through the periscope of the USS Kingfish (SS-234), October 1942.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/405384509_738197728343053_1629737292005392753_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=1ue2qAah8C4AX8gSxNg&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBQk1aRdcTxoXGJnuNrG9WZzabs0YZY0VfQJ74lE8emPQ&oe=65757375)
USS Bennington sailing by the wreck of USS Arizona, Honolulu, US Territory of Hawaii, 30 May 1958.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/407642696_846731030575179_6781980034668064139_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=BcKZMRy9SmMAX8C69x6&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAsNzu9iWNsmg0tKpKiPtZxPHhtUhbzfP7UpRQVclCAqg&oe=6573E98E)
Dutch Colossus class carrier Karel Doorman in 1960. This ship was sold to Argentina in 1968 as Veinticinco de Mayo.
-
Car-go Carrier!!!
-
And now for something completely different: the anniversary gift my wife got me for our 8th anniversary yesterday (see attached).
It's a brass bookmark inset with teak wood from the deck of the USS California (BB-44).
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/406132168_735908975238595_3512341776305416254_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=M_4IMQFf5PcAX_EUQy_&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBKTR9zslrvz3IDyWjVyq-UVR6ZTin71VTTPYoY9ypM0g&oe=6570243D)
The battleship USS Wisconsin (BB-64) and a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser (either USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55) or USS San Jacinto (CG-56)) sit at anchor in the harbor during the fourth annual Fleet Week activities, 1991.
I was there for that Fleet Week. There's nothing like seeing a manned, combat capable battleship enter NY Harbor.
-
You know, if I was a battleship captain in the 80s . . . I would have wanted the Imperial March playing from the loudspeakers whenever the ship came into port.
just a random thought
-
You know, if I was a battleship captain in the 80s . . . I would have wanted the Imperial March playing from the loudspeakers whenever the ship came into port.
just a random thought
I would have gone for Hearts of Oak, but different navy.... :tongue:
-
Gio: that is SO COOL!! :)
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/408721399_741118444717648_7705007657869461134_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=tS11xjqvp4MAX9cb4DF&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfCpWddXlrLgi39vyB2COoOy-jV4EcpIcQh9W8Erqt4gkA&oe=6578B0C0)
USS Cassin Young (DD-793), now a National Historic Landmark since 1986, is one of only four surviving Fletcher-class destroyers still afloat.
-
First steel cut for first F126 this week. Ship is to be delivered 2028. 10,500 tons, 166m length. Still called a frigate.
(https://i.ibb.co/BzmzKyw/f126.jpg)
-
1. Ship classifications are as much politics as they are technical now.
2. When posting pictures, used {img width=500}url{/img}.
Like so:
(https://i.ibb.co/BzmzKyw/f126.jpg)
Clicking the picture will embiggen.
-
"Designed to be continuously deployed with minimal maintenance for up to two years and operate for 5000 hours per year"
I can't even imagine what kind of shape she'll be in after two years. Remember that American ship that finally returned to port after 11 months, and how dilapidated and rusted her hull and superstructure were? Doubling that, with "minimal maintenance" and likely minimal crew...yikes.
I'm also a lot bit surprised at how light the armament is for a ship of that size. 16 VLS cells, a 5" gun, eight NSMs, and two RAM launchers for point defense. That and a handful of machine guns. Compared to a Tico, which is a thousand tons lighter, but carries 122 VLS cells, eight Harpoons, two 5" guns, two CWIS, and six torpedo tubes. It's twice the firepower, if you load the 16 VLS on the F126 with quad-packs of SAMs, and almost eight times as much if you're loading full cell shots like cruise missiles, antiship missiles, ASROCs, or others - and the Tico can quad-pack enough ESSMs to turn an entire Air Force into aluminum confetti.
I get the idea of the multirole mission modules, but seriously, you're building a heavy cruiser by WWII's standards and you're only arming it to that level? Something feels left behind pretty dramatically.
-
I get the idea of the multirole mission modules, but seriously, you're building a heavy cruiser by WWII's standards and you're only arming it to that level?
The F126 frigates are basically F125 (7200 tons) by general ship design with some "updates"; on top of that adding in a VLS for self-defense purposes (64 ESSM Block 2) and a second flexible space for an "ASW module".
I can't even imagine what kind of shape she'll be in after two years. Remember that American ship that finally returned to port after 11 months, and how dilapidated and rusted her hull and superstructure were? Doubling that, with "minimal maintenance" and likely minimal crew...yikes.
The German Navy has regularly deployed corvettes abroad for up to 18 months continuously over the last ten years, switching flown-in crews in-theater.
-
1. Ship classifications are as much politics as they are technical now.
Always has been, whether you're talking about the USN 1975 re-classification or the interwar naval treaties - hard to get more political than those, plus of course the vagaries of translation across languages.
In my mind though, using frigate as a catch-all term for multi-role surface warships has a pleasing symmetry to it, bringing us full circle back to steam frigates as the general-purpose warships. It makes prefect sense for the French to drop their destroyer classifications entirely, since contre-torpilleur and torpilleur don't make much sense in the missile age. The same goes for the plethora of classifications that the Italians used.
It's more interesting to me that everyone seemed to have a need to describe missle-age 'ocean-going surface warship' and 'coastal surface warship' and grabbed onto the previously-out-of-use names of frigate and corvette respectively despite both terms being brought back by the British to describe the completely unrelated concepts of cheap, slow merchant-standard ASW ships for escorting convoys because they were far too slow by design to keep up with dedicated warships.
And the wide range of 'frigates' from the 2250 ton Belgian Wielingen-class to the upcoming 10,000+ ton monsters like the F126 or Hunter-class neatly mirrors the pre-dreadnought trend of calling everything a cruiser, and actually over very similar displacement ranges.
HMS Adventure, scout cruiser, commissioned 1905, 2700 ton displacement
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/HMS_Adventure_%281904%29.jpg)
HMS Warrior, armoured cruiser, commissioned 1906, 13500 ton displacement normal load
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/British_Ships_of_the_First_World_War_Q21940.jpg/736px-British_Ships_of_the_First_World_War_Q21940.jpg)
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/393209004_2219068088290323_7465162618189422482_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=c42490&_nc_ohc=xfs57VqCqY0AX_QqU87&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfDAwG54WL0D2hyQJJwmvh6ZVRwLkBIzHQjyUo6UbVO39w&oe=657A5E37)
USS Wisconsin
-
Something I have never really seen displayed in public . . .
USS SAM RAYBURN" (SSBN-635) Showing the 16 Hatches for Her UGM-27 Polaris Missiles; Each Carrying 3 x W58 Thermonuclear MIRV Warheads of 200 kT Each
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/406465074_265007286583808_3434145340284098568_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=LnEo9c_zXCIAX8dl7QK&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBRsCQHjEmj6jSKpyaaFZdgY76LnvRgpF7VhInFKwJxGg&oe=6579B2D7)
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/409482683_265070683244135_8549451506252496918_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=TCbxDgsDsSYAX9-BtgU&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAOxFrfa6SKNZSVZ_KVps8x9ZRdLhZoaftq3Q5TCb38XA&oe=657A83EC)
Uncompleted hull of battleship USS Kentucky (BB-66)
-
Something's wrong with that last image tag... Not sure what caused it to fail...
-
Used Modly powers - had "wdth" not "width", all good now!
-
Something I have never really seen displayed in public . . .
USS SAM RAYBURN" (SSBN-635) Showing the 16 Hatches for Her UGM-27 Polaris Missiles; Each Carrying 3 x W58 Thermonuclear MIRV Warheads of 200 kT Each
(http://snip that photo)
I HAVE this PHOTO framed! 30x20-ish, with a signed USN matte, in a nice walnut frame, given to me by a retired MCPO who served on that boat.
I spent 12 days doing A&B tasker and was given an attaboy and this framed photo.
I'd take a pic of it and post it, but it is in storage.
-
And the wide range of 'frigates' from the 2250 ton Belgian Wielingen-class to the upcoming 10,000+ ton monsters like the F126 or Hunter-class neatly mirrors the pre-dreadnought trend of calling everything a cruiser, and actually over very similar displacement ranges.
The Wielingen class would probably be called a corvette today. That designation is blowing up massively in size in Europe lately - Finland's Pohjanmaa "corvettes" will be 4300 tons.
-
Used Modly powers - had "wdth" not "width", all good now!
Thanks Worktroll! I totally missed that missing "i"... :)
-
1. Ship classifications are as much politics as they are technical now.
2. When posting pictures, used {img width=500}url{/img}.
Like so:
(https://i.ibb.co/BzmzKyw/f126.jpg)
Clicking the picture will embiggen.
10k tons but only 16VLS tubes. Kinda lightly armed for its sized.
-
10k tons but only 16VLS tubes. Kinda lightly armed for its sized.
It's not the displacement, it's what you do with it! :cheesy:
I'm actually kinda curious where all that displacement is going to. The crew complement is tiny, and even the extra passenger/crew capacity only brings it up to the normal complement of something like a Type 45 or Hobart (~200ish), still well short of the ~300 you see on large AAW destroyers around the Pacific. Doubly so when you account for members of the air group.
The Pohjanmaa sure look like a Cold War-era frigate with a corvette-sized crew.
-
With armament that light, it should have some impressive speed...
-
With armament that light, it should have some impressive speed...
No, they might actually a bit on the slow side for a surface warship, ditto the Pohjanmaa. Maybe they have an onboard brewery and beer hall?
-
Hmmm... no idea what they put the mass toward then... :/
-
Hmmm... no idea what they put the mass toward then... :/
I think just the mess glassware is substantial
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/20/1411221727489_wps_64_A_waitress_carries_mugs_o.jpg)
-
LOL! Good one! :D
-
A beer hall, mit Volkstuemlice Muisk band! 🤪
Also, today marks 41 years since USS Ohio (SSBN-726) completed her first deterrent patrol.
(https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/naval-subjects-collection/l45--us-navy-ships/201-220/l45-216-01-01-uss-ohio--ssbn-726-/_jcr_content/mediaitem/image.img.jpg/1605896995689.jpg)
-
She was only 8 years old when I did my Midshipman cruise in her... she was NOT fun to drive on the surface!
-
One storm deserves another . . .
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/409230146_265530836531453_4433156701521240417_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=gypu8qEY8uAAX8inPsf&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfBofoopeNRht-0B4MVcBVl8p9zkAPbi_NqKSdjPONG5gg&oe=657B983D)
USS Essex (CV-9) Takes spray over the bow while steaming in heavy seas, Note S2-F at the rear of the flight deck, with its engines turning. Other planes visible, amidships, include AD and F4-D January 12th 1960 .
-
I'm actually kinda curious where all that displacement is going to.
If i look at internal walkarounds of US ships (like this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXDdh5zRle0) for USS Sampson), by comparison:
[/list]
- Corridors, Stairways etc on F125/F126 are generally twice as wide. Or at least look that wide. Might be all the damage control equipment cluttering spaces on US ships.
- Enlisted berthing - despite one-third the crew - is about the same total space. 4-Man cabins for enlisted with own head and shower that are the size of staterooms on US ship.
- Control spaces seem to be more spacious on German ships, even before accounting for them also existing redundantly for resilience purposes.
- On F125 the four internal boat bays (and the two fully separate helicopter hangars) take up quite an amount of volume. On F126 the boat bays are reduced to two (slightly larger) with the rest of the space rearranged to be used for one of the flex decks.
-
1 head per 4-man berthing space??? That's going to be HEAVY...
Even when I obtained a stateroom to myself (filling in for my O-6 boss for a couple of weeks), I still had to wander down the p-way for a head. The tour before that, my office had a head attached to it, but that was only because the building used to be a barracks.
-
1 head per 4-man berthing space??? That's going to be HEAVY...
Even when I obtained a stateroom to myself (filling in for my O-6 boss for a couple of weeks), I still had to wander down the p-way for a head. The tour before that, my office had a head attached to it, but that was only because the building used to be a barracks.
One of the big issues with simply making more Burkes is that Burkes have 1980s habitability and crew sizes. At a time when recruitment and retention are both pressing issues, I'd have a hard time arguing against better quarters.
If i look at internal walkarounds of US ships (like
this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXDdh5zRle0) for USS Sampson), by comparison:
[/list]
- Corridors, Stairways etc on F125/F126 are generally twice as wide. Or at least look that wide. Might be all the damage control equipment cluttering spaces on US ships.
- Enlisted berthing - despite one-third the crew - is about the same total space. 4-Man cabins for enlisted with own head and shower that are the size of staterooms on US ship.
- Control spaces seem to be more spacious on German ships, even before accounting for them also existing redundantly for resilience purposes.
- On F125 the four internal boat bays (and the two fully separate helicopter hangars) take up quite an amount of volume. On F126 the boat bays are reduced to two (slightly larger) with the rest of the space rearranged to be used for one of the flex decks.
There's also a lot of excess berthing if the preliminary spec sheet is correct with a normal crew of something like 120 and room for another 100ish. Just the additional heads and showers are going to require a lot more plumbing, so I can see that contributing for sure.
Type 45-class destroyer enlisted quarters:
(https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/25130/45150954.jpg)
I think it's going to be a general trend. Metal is also cheap, and everyone's learned better to have some extra space and displacement to grow into in future upgrades. That, and livability is both a health and morale factor, especially with retention/recruitment issues and increasingly older crews on average. It's just notable in that it seems to be true for everyone, but even in that context, the F126s are unusual.
Type 055 quarters. Not sure if it's junior/senior enlisted
(https://preview.redd.it/9wpeonrkz9l61.jpg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=748c3305cf3e501fe00467ab1844e8f0c25dc540)
Type 055 mess with some eye-searing upholstery (seems to be used everywhere including the wardroom)
(https://preview.redd.it/679ftmqkz9l61.jpg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=13babd8485b7fd2ddf4c565935f30ec29121161b)
Still though, I suspect they're a much more desired posting than the old Sovremenny class destroyers.
Some more crew quarters: https://www.reddit.com/gallery/10mcdqe
My big takeaway is that the urge to issue camo to sailors transcends national borders. Apparently it's just the kind of good idea that admirals everywhere can't stop having.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/10o8jdo/album_life_aboard_plan_type_052dl_destroyer_132/
-
1 head per 4-man berthing space??? That's going to be HEAVY...
Even when I obtained a stateroom to myself (filling in for my O-6 boss for a couple of weeks), I still had to wander down the p-way for a head. The tour before that, my office had a head attached to it, but that was only because the building used to be a barracks.
See, I peaked back in '03 when I was Commanding Officer of Troops (C.O.T. but not "cot" oddly) on USS ASHLAND for 2.5 months; I had a stateroom, a cabin, and a head with shower.
-
Nice! I do remember the old Marine berthing spaces on USS NIMITZ when she was in the yards. The "Major's" quarters were MUCH better than my stateroom... ;)
-
Tuo Chiang class corvette. Displaces around 700 tonnes with 41 crew. Looks chonky because it's pretty wide at 14-15m
(https://i.redd.it/akot90cafjg71.jpg)
And the Coast Guard version:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/%E5%AE%89%E5%B9%B3%E8%89%A6%E5%B7%A6%E8%88%B7_%E9%AB%98%E9%9B%84%E6%B5%81%E8%A1%8C%E9%9F%B3%E6%A8%82%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83_20210215.jpg/1280px-%E5%AE%89%E5%B9%B3%E8%89%A6%E5%B7%A6%E8%88%B7_%E9%AB%98%E9%9B%84%E6%B5%81%E8%A1%8C%E9%9F%B3%E6%A8%82%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83_20210215.jpg)
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/408704637_741696794659813_1663718562422605252_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=C1CTTMt1Jy0AX8QcdPk&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfBOoJS5T-02_beIPSxtsouEVc3WModgIk4QPAiiA-LYMw&oe=657CCCDB)
The Royal Navy battlecruiser HMS Inflexible standing by to pick up survivors from the German cruiser SMS Gneisenau after the Battle of the Falkland Islands, December 1914.
Not the sort of picture you see every day.
-
And the Coast Guard version:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/%E5%AE%89%E5%B9%B3%E8%89%A6%E5%B7%A6%E8%88%B7_%E9%AB%98%E9%9B%84%E6%B5%81%E8%A1%8C%E9%9F%B3%E6%A8%82%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83_20210215.jpg/1280px-%E5%AE%89%E5%B9%B3%E8%89%A6%E5%B7%A6%E8%88%B7_%E9%AB%98%E9%9B%84%E6%B5%81%E8%A1%8C%E9%9F%B3%E6%A8%82%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83_20210215.jpg)
That looks like a cruise ship.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/408704637_741696794659813_1663718562422605252_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=C1CTTMt1Jy0AX8QcdPk&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfBOoJS5T-02_beIPSxtsouEVc3WModgIk4QPAiiA-LYMw&oe=657CCCDB)
The Royal Navy battlecruiser HMS Inflexible standing by to pick up survivors from the German cruiser SMS Gneisenau after the Battle of the Falkland Islands, December 1914.
Not the sort of picture you see every day.
True, but it's a story that happened several times over the years, and there's a reason why, too.
nobody wants to be left in that situation. The Royal Navy picked up the survivors of Bismarck for the same reason-they understood that it could've been them, and they'd want to be picked up too.
-
Oh I get that, I meant pictures of that many men floating in the water.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/410397973_743935411102618_6862481754736929728_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=9srgAX8ULtUAX-4aVtf&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBXGBBVRhvoPwIXF7eRquIpRGa-FMVUB1c1aFJFTS_jWQ&oe=657F2BA1)
The once mighty and feared Soviet fleet sits abandoned in the ice of the so-called "submarine cemetery", Vladivostok, Russia, 2001.
We talk about the Special K's condition . . . but it applied to other ships & boats too.
-
Wow... those are some amazing pictures! I can't say more without violating Rule 4...
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/410397973_743935411102618_6862481754736929728_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=9srgAX8ULtUAX-4aVtf&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBXGBBVRhvoPwIXF7eRquIpRGa-FMVUB1c1aFJFTS_jWQ&oe=657F2BA1)
The once mighty and feared Soviet fleet sits abandoned in the ice of the so-called "submarine cemetery", Vladivostok, Russia, 2001.
We talk about the Special K's condition . . . but it applied to other ships & boats too.
except the Special K was still in service, which made its "pending salvage on the move" condition more notable.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/409629526_377325411464583_5404186043514832317_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=d3D3Pz9m0MAAX_RphXr&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfD9wIozA2f7mOSAg8pZPpu2EgheB1Q_PFMlRB-9f4i9ZA&oe=65802F51)
Everyone has seen the photo of the four Iowa class battleships sailing together. Here is an equally cool photo of the French Richelieu class battleships sailing together on January 30, 1956. This was the first and only time the sisters sailed together during their careers.
Jean Bart, easily distinguished by her superstructure and heavier secondary weaponry, is leading her sister Richelieu on exercises.
France hoped to modernize Richelieu to the same standard as her younger sister. However, funding was not available for such a massive project. Therefore, it was decided to give Richelieu a more austere refit during 1950/1951 and turn her into a gunnery training ship. She continued in this role until February of 1956, the month after this photo was taken. She would be laid up in Brest, serving as a floating barracks and school ship until 1967.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/410558890_268939359523934_440570839396093271_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=PwTHla42g3EAX_8QqAM&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAF3Qqo4RTwNSBGCb_sWglLHVLjvpylkBsbWliw3rbzmA&oe=6582DB44)
Forward 12" turret of USS Ohio (BB-12). The effort to keep the barrels in such a high state of shine must have been considerable
-
No kidding! Salt spray is no joke...
-
I remember when I was in college- I took a film class that included watching Battleship Potemkin. In the scene that showed all the sailors scrubbing the deck, most of the class thought it was some sort of punishment for complaining instead of just a vital part of maintaining a steel warship on the ocean.
-
Heh... there's plenty of routine work at sea that those unfamiliar would think of as punishment.
-
Nevermind the ships from Predreadnought era. I've not really seen a picture where these ships are rusting hard or in disrepair.
It must be the materials their using. Teak decks like the Ohio has take alot elbow grease (aka alot mopping) keep salt water from rotting it.
I was side cleaner in the US Navy, It was a lot endless scrubbing, frankly we were only 6 man team. We barely kept head of it.
-
I remember when I was in college- I took a film class that included watching Battleship Potemkin. In the scene that showed all the sailors scrubbing the deck, most of the class thought it was some sort of punishment for complaining instead of just a vital part of maintaining a steel warship on the ocean.
yep, there is a reason that sailors were called 'swabbies".
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/411157608_208533082304757_8057166113054372722_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dd5e9f&_nc_ohc=wrORWz2rVFUAX-gMz1t&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfAZ_mPFsPZzDhFZjnOnu85K6M99kk59tjl9dF1Tngl7Ow&oe=65847475)
Aerial view of the U.S. Navy amphibious assault ships USS Tarawa (LHA-1), left, and USS Essex (LHD-2), right moored at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, California (USA), in 1993. The decommissioned aircraft carrier USS Ranger (CV-61) is in a graving dock in the background.
National Archives: 6489324
-
Those were the days...
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/409213529_269102102840993_3222844342275955540_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=zcJj4J45BX4AX8-t7re&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAQ12RdyboGlqP4aMUWK1NmdhzeJJVBX5luLMj3lniAOA&oe=6584CFD9)
The USS Enterprise was designed to be the largest and most powerful aircraft carrier in the world. It measured over 1,100 feet in length and had a displacement of over 90,000 tons. Its eight nuclear reactors provided virtually unlimited power, allowing the ship to operate for years without refuelling. The ship was also equipped with the latest technology, including steam catapults and advanced radar systems.
-
still sad that the nuclear reactors aboard made it pretty much impossible to keep it as a museum ship.
-
Shame they couldn't have saved the Kitty Hawk, just because she wasn't nuclear. I doubt that any of the reactor-powered carriers are going to be monuments, personally.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/409179402_267888062962397_2558592994237985154_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=A52GI4Mbtk4AX_HAWd2&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfDoN7sieOZ6KCmJ8GohrT4VN6rHEXfoG8EY8IdlHR6kKA&oe=658590ED)
The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Yorktown (CV-5) in Dry Dock No. 1 at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, 29 May 1942, receiving repairs for damage received in the Battle of Coral Sea. USS West Virginia (BB-48) is being salvaged in the distance
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/411395552_385056150758757_274552916203137940_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dd5e9f&_nc_ohc=BvUnNv8Q7MAAX_5AcOp&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfCJrdTn_3m2E7hkRCi94vu80AwK9m2dUDhBDggpG59_6A&oe=6583EF0C)
HMS Nelson
-
Shame they couldn't have saved the Kitty Hawk, just because she wasn't nuclear. I doubt that any of the reactor-powered carriers are going to be monuments, personally.
my understanding is that the newer ones could possibly be saved, it just would require some work to pull the reactors. the problem the Enterprise had was it just had a lot more reactors and they were of old design, which combiend with their placement making the effort to pull them practically require dismantling of the entire ship.
-
They figured out Nautilus, so I'm sure cost was a bigger factor.
Colt: YORKTOWN went straight from that dry dock to Midway. They were in such a hurry, the last shipyard workers were taken off by boat...
-
So what are the launchers on Nelson's turrets in Colt Ward's picture? Something like a British SRBOC?
-
AA rocket launchers. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrotated_Projectile)
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/410223083_269994586085078_4832705757958816301_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=_ltE6HofJ4EAX83c5lJ&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfACHYFhXurp-RtIwh0g4KUF_jCIh10UZQHagDGWGWZeUg&oe=65867F78)
USS Texas (BB-35) Underway Off Iwo Jima, February 1945
-
I never knew they put AA Rockets on WW2 British Ships.
-
So what are the launchers on Nelson's turrets in Colt Ward's picture? Something like a British SRBOC?
These things https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrotated_Projectile
-
Because we rarely share 'nice' pictures . . .
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/411382927_748976110598548_5117246010856905076_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=FKl9N3zshBMAX8GRncm&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfBnq9Voaty3G5GzdZSZFd7RwTix8XoJ-MFh7hqkKJ76wQ&oe=65884B7B)
The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) steams near the snow-capped mountains of the Alaskan coastline during the late Alaskan sunset, 2004.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/411772842_747602604069232_2253501710952637183_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=V-wo20v9N0gAX9Eh6be&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAVzQ6-iiEDbTtvGsjkmXj9ByxH9I7upvXFheBFaus90A&oe=6587E53E)
The aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77), USS Enterprise (CVN-65), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) are in port at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., the world's largest naval station—photo taken in 2012.
Begs the question of what was at sea? Not mentioned but mixed in where some of the amphib carriers . . . I see a 5 between the 65 & 72, then a 1, 3 and furthest out a 7.
-
Those were the days... I spent more than a little time down on the waterfront back then... :)
-
There must be at least two battle groups from the East Coast deployed.
If I'm not mistaken at the time of this picture, there were 11 battle groups in the entirety of the fleet itself. There was at least be one aircraft carrier in dock either being refitted while another one's being built because they do it very slowly due to budgeting to build the things.
If there was something still call a capital ship, it would be these aircraft carriers and arguably the ballistic and attack submarines.
-
If there was something still call a capital ship, it would be these aircraft carriers and arguably the ballistic and attack submarines.
I mean, there's a reason submarines (first the SSBN's and now attack boats too) inherited the state names from battleships.
-
An attack boat was also named after a President... ;)
-
I mean, there's a reason submarines (first the SSBN's and now attack boats too) inherited the state names from battleships.
Because everyone is happier when they exist and do their jobs but are neither seen nor heard? Or because underwater accurately describes certain financial obligations? :angel:
-
Just found this; and my first thought was, a Battletech-ship with Arrow IVs.
(https://iili.io/JRff43b.jpg)
-
Just found this; and my first thought was, a Battletech-ship with Arrow IVs.
(https://iili.io/JRff43b.jpg)
I loved that issue when it was first published.
Ruger
-
Haven't ships' bridges traditionally been elevated to provide the best possible all-around visibility? I understand the logic here of maintaining a low profile from both a visual and radar cross-section standpoint, but that little bulge seems like it would be about as good as no bridge at all for more prosaic tasks where visibility is still needed, such as, say, docking.
-
Depends on what you mean by "traditionally"... ;)
-
mmmmmm...floating missile farm.
-
I was always disappointed as a kid that the arsenal ship was never built, how are I think Popular Mechanics romanticized the ship concept. I was a big battle Shepherd when I was a kid, not understanding why the big boats were gone but this suggested there was something new coming which it never came.
Even now as an adult I don't think they'll ever build something of significance like that concept of overwhelming firepower, even if that shit didn't really have any defensive weapons.
The DDGX their planning to finally replace the Burkes with does not jump at me being a ship thatbwill be impressive. I wish the CGX project had taken off, it would have been a better platform for something designated as a cruiser to place the Ticos was the Zumwalt hull.
-
Battlecrusier 2000 eventually evolved into Arsenal Ship, which was nearly built. Then strategic arms limitation treaties left the Navy with four excess Ohios, which were converted into SSGNs instead.
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/pop.h-cdn.co/assets/17/23/768x384/landscape-1496693296-arsenal-72.jpg?resize=640:*)
-
SSGNs are better arsenal ships anyway... ;)
-
SSGNs are better arsenal ships anyway... ;)
They cost way more build , train specialty rotating crews, and maintaining power plant.
That thing would have been cheaper to up keep and less training .
-
Yeah, but an SSGN can hide anywhere in the ocean; good luck tracking one compared to a surface vessel.
-
Exactly... that's what makes it cost effective... :)
-
Slightly off topic, but I got flashbacks of Battlecruiser 3000, seeing the title. I did see that issue too, but was kinda expecting a vapourware title.
-
You know what’s funny: that “Battlecruiser 2000” and the project mentioned was the progenitor of the CG(X) and DDG(X) project.
Group Mike was the beginning of the SG-21 program, which got rescaled into the DD(X) and CG(X) programs. Then CG(X) essentially gets dropped in favor of the Ohio “arsenal ship” SSGN conversions plus Burke block 3 ships, while DDG(X) evolved into the Zumwalt.
“Gunfighter”, meanwhile, was meant to be a low-cost supplement, and to pick up the modularity and ability to carry troops the SC-21 program envisioned, which in turn became the LCS program.
-
The Ropucha class landing ship Novocherkassk was destroyed in Crimea last night. Rusia is claiming it was hit by air-launched cruise missiles.
Here's a "before" picture:
(https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2023/12/26/1920px-%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81_142._%D0%91%D0%94%D0%9A-46_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA._%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C._%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BC._%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F._%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B9_2015_-_panoramio.jpg?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1920)
-
It was confirmed destroyed? The news this morning only reported it as damaged.
-
That crap sticking out of the water is all that's left.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCRI1A1XcAAaN5_?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
"Here we see a Russian Naval vessel in its natural environment.."
-
(https://images.spot.im/image/upload/q_70,fl_lossy,dpr_3,h_94,w_100,c_scale/v200/08443d2a02af0b5bff0d465f32de9b2f)
-
Hilarious! :D
-
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=74822)
The oldest operational combat Submarine in the world, the ROCS Hai Shih SS-791.
She is a Trench Class Attack Submarine, launched as the USS Cutlass SS-478 in November 1944.
This storied lady was decommissioned in 1973, she along with sister ships were upgraded to the GUPPY II upgrade.
She part of the Taiwan's naval forces since 1973. This image was posted on Reddit.
-
CV-18 Fujian
(https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2024/01/03/China-carrier.jpg?auto=webp&crop=16%3A9&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1920)
-
So do the electromagnetic catapults finally work?
CV-18 Fujian
(https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2024/01/03/China-carrier.jpg?auto=webp&crop=16%3A9&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1920)
-
So do the electromagnetic catapults finally work?
They were spotted launching the testing trolleys last month, so they seem to be. Not sure what you mean by finally though. It seemed to just take a long time to install. Unless you're mixing it up with the Ford, which did have protracted teething issues, but that might have just been the Ford being officially pushed into 'service' too early when it should have been in extended testing/fixing of all those new systems.
-
CV-18 Fujian
(https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2024/01/03/China-carrier.jpg?auto=webp&crop=16%3A9&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1920)
That shot shows both how long the EMALs are relative to the hull, and also probably why they only went with a single waist cat, with the 3 cats being about equal distance from each other. Given the size of Flankers, I don't think a second waist catapult would have fit without making the deck substantially wider. I think I've read about space being an issue that took some working around on the US CV/CVNs as well when launching large birds like Tomcats off the waist positions.
-
There been a lot speculation that the carriers aren't as effective as their advertising. Especially the Fujan.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/414925830_369126535719080_939926501419891854_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dd5e9f&_nc_ohc=VR_zRLwXiJcAX-dtEh4&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfDQEpjEE9tTwVeVuIBEViz_PfFa151Wa8EOgSxXpzHg-Q&oe=659BC635)
HM Submarine UNISON seen in October 1943 in Devonport Dockyard.
She took part in operation Harpoon, when she torpedoed an Italian cruiser force composed of the light cruisers Raimondo Montecuccoli and Emanuele Filiberto Duca d'Aosta without hitting any target on 13 June 1942. On 2 August 1943 Unison was fired on in error by the American tanker Yankee Arrow off Cape Bon, causing damage to her pressure hull, although she was able to return to dock at Bizerte under her own power. The attack killed the officer of the watch, and severely injured three other crew members, including her captain, Lieutenant Anthony Daniell DSO DSC.
She was transferred to the Soviet Navy on 26 June 1944, and renamed V-3 (B-3 in Russian). She spent five years in Soviet service, being returned in 1949 and scrapped at Stockton in May 1950.
During War Week, March 1942, HMS Unison was adopted by the people of Ashby-de-la-Zouch. Both the rural district council and the urban district council of Ashby were later presented with plaques commemorating their support for the vessel and her crew. These plaques were recently discovered, reunited and presented to Ashby de la Zouch museum to be put on display.
-
One of the few times all Iowa's were together, in 1954
-
In that case, we ought to make sure we group the photos together.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/420166380_833041448623448_1312560186911551800_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=JJ9wAYUsqn4AX8PYMs7&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfCBSqpjiaPT_-96Jcf4fvx1wm9gHioYSHb2nRAz8r83WA&oe=65AFF2E5)
The righting and refloating of the capsized battleship Oklahoma was the largest of the Pearl Harbor salvage jobs, and the most difficult. Since returning this elderly and very badly damaged warship to active service was not seriously contemplated, the major part of the project only began in mid-1942, after more immediately important salvage jobs were completed. Its purpose was mainly to clear an important mooring berth for further use, and only secondarily to recover some of Oklahoma's weapons and equipment. The first task was turning Oklahoma upright. During the latter part of 1942 and early 1943, an extensive system of righting frames (or "bents") and cable anchors was installed on the ship's hull, twenty-one large winches were firmly mounted on nearby Ford Island, and cables were rigged between ship and shore. Oklahoma's port side had been largely torn open by Japanese torpedos, and a series of patches had to be installed. This involved much work by divers and other working personnel, as did efforts to cut away wreckage, close internal and external fittings, remove stores and the bodies of those killed on 7 December 1941. The ship came afloat in early November 1943, and was drydocked in late December, after nearly two more months of work.
-
Japanese CVL (ex-CA) Ibuki early in scrapping after the end of WWII. She was never completed in either format.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/421547909_294189113665625_5247628181561581399_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=0vCCRhluwlsAX8dWUfg&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAmjA6m7jhevbugyzA15TwcnbQQK4uhF_UrMZ63fsluHg&oe=65B6441F)
USS West Virginia (BB-48) in floating drydock ABSD-1, off Aessi Island, Espiritu Santo, New Hebrides, on 13 Nov 1944. The ship was docked for upkeep and repair to propellers damaged when she touched ground off Leyte on 21 October.
-
That was a time when touching ground was greeted with a shrug... not so much these days...
-
HMS Havelock, Abercrombie-class monitor in 1927 waiting for scrapping at the T.W. Wards Shipbreakers at Preston, UK
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=75024)
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/422968213_296048303479706_265876695417041554_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=ItYvRD63eroAX_ib1zx&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfCzKOcePWclZx3HTDFzQITVwlFwvnEBIdxKASP_viEZRg&oe=65BA1CB4)
A view of the battleship HMS Duke of York being scrapped, looking aft. The subdivision of the main machinery spaces is very clear.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/422910728_295399493544587_8956777096359622721_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=bOzJWwiOCY8AX_TwZ59&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfDNWDcHnE2nb10xSPVTGCjRFJo5WWVeefKL_UlzmgppUg&oe=65BBB557)
Japanese BB's certainly have a distinctive silhouette! Battleship Fuso during survival exercises. The crew conducts tests on flooding and drainage in compartments of the ship.
-
Distinctive is an understatement! :D
-
High School diplomas (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-navy-will-no-longer-require-a-high-school-diploma-to-enlist/ar-BB1hrht1?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=8bb98d5fc30f47c78cf60d666416cfc5&ei=97)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Bwux7-SQ-E4/U2gaK39zSNI/AAAAAAAACsk/KHL_8jFbEAU/s1600/popeye+submarine+man.jpg)
TT
-
Shrink that down to 600 or so so it's visible on the screen?
-
The Tirpitz in an unusual camo scheme, c. 1940:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElURJWFU8AAhc76?format=jpg&name=large)
This was done during construction, to disguise the ship against the docks. More effective in a wider view:
(https://external-preview.redd.it/VUWEyTGGgahccS4wxU8gjeTaz22UPeBR8125aahUBMg.jpg?auto=webp&s=b8d3355af05449acb9c70be5a9190c695ac696a9)
-
Clever.
-
"We're a harmless pier! Don't shoot me!!!" look is noble idea..
-
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. When docked in North Africa, Jean Bart was painted in a dusty yellow to match the buildings it was docked alongside, though I don't think it helped much.
It DEFINITELY worked for HNLMS Abraham Crijnssen. :cool:
-
I think 3D and live shrubbery on your ship, next to woodlands or other greenery does work wee better than 2D paint job on the side of the ship, where you're big honking battleship main guns are looming around.
-
I think 3D and live shrubbery on your ship, next to woodlands or other greenery does work wee better than 2D paint job on the side of the ship, where you're big honking battleship main guns are looming around.
Pimp my BB...
TT
-
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. When docked in North Africa, Jean Bart was painted in a dusty yellow to match the buildings it was docked alongside, though I don't think it helped much.
It DEFINITELY worked for HNLMS Abraham Crijnssen. :cool:
yep.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/HMAS-HRMS_Abraham_Crijnssen.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GIXSKthlTxo/WrXgkOJkG8I/AAAAAAAAPr8/05ybtoUx1VMKi51u-Rd38rRml3au-nROgCLcBGAs/s1600/Abraham_Crijnssen_4.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BBUy0b-MQxU/WrXgjg-7beI/AAAAAAAAPr0/v9VCR3wCac8Lp_Hug_h4bDnaj7u1UnbEACLcBGAs/s1600/Abraham_Crijnssen_2.jpg)
-
Yep indeed! Of course, it helps if you refresh the shrubbery now and then... ;D
-
I think 3D and live shrubbery on your ship, next to woodlands or other greenery does work wee better than 2D paint job on the side of the ship, where you're big honking battleship main guns are looming around.
This would work against torpedo bombers or subs sneaking into port.
-
End of the Line, exUSS Delaware being prepared for scraping in 1924 at the Boston Shipyard's South Boston Annex. It should be noted the while shipyard as whole is gone, the this dry dock still exists.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=75049)
-
Treaty of Washington result?
-
Treaty of Washington result?
Yeah, she was replaced by the Colorado, while her sister, North Dakota, was replaced by the West Virginia under the treaty terms.
-
(https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/421540323_771386231690869_8882848611939695000_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=TdUhDdzV34gAX9QTr-R&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&oh=00_AfCZwGGIUNcBJFrBtVheSs4dKuu4-X6_BHlL4VfMk_KeSQ&oe=65C0673B)
Commissioning of USS Yorktown (CV-10) on 15 April 1943.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/424524426_297075453376991_7339965954039296451_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=cndQXC3uv38AX9bos0i&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfA9NTINgootmWi-Qy3kqVSkywuPaPj8P83KT6x5n0ga_A&oe=65C07B69)
German Aircraft carrier "Graf Zeppelin" under construction, March 22, 1939. Deutsche Werke, Kiel.
-
honestly probably a good thing it got built, even though it was never finished and would have been a boondoggle as designed. it diverted lots of resources away from stuff that the nazi's could have used to actually fight the allies.
-
That describes so much of what the Nazis built.
-
I think the colorization of YORKTOWN's deck may be off...
-
I think the colorization of YORKTOWN's deck may be off...
I am not so sure, it matches pretty closely to when I saw the Texas a while ago, it was a Pacific color scheme that was more blue than the traditional gray- she was also supposed to be in her Pac configuration b/c they had left the added AA weapons from her refit to go from Atlantic to Pac duty.
With that said, all 'colorizations' seem a bit off.
-
*snip*
With that said, all 'colorizations' seem a bit off.
Agreed! :)
-
Current state of exEnterprise 2/3/2024
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=75076)
-
Sad to see... I learned to conn her not that long ago...
-
I heard speculation the bridge / superstructure was to be preserve, but I think that not happening.
-
Before the latest renovation at the Air and Space Museum, the flight deck film running in the aircraft carrier exhibit was from ENTERPRISE. I haven't been back lately to see if it still is...
-
Anyone got current pics of the CV-80 Enterprise and its current state of construction
-
Here best I can find, I think CVN-80's hull is more formed now, since these pictures are from 2022.
Old CVN-65 was there when she CVN-80's hull was first put down.
There is a third picture, Satellite picture which maybe CVN-80 actually having hull to speak of. CVN-79 next to it but I'm not 100% confident since sat pictures from map programs are notorious being dated (and censored.)
-
Nice shots, thanks! :)
-
Not 100% sure, but I think she has a fully built hull in dry dock in this satellite shot. I know the Kennedy CVN-79, which is the ship in the water was bit behind (construction wise) from the Ford, this is why I believe the ship in the dock in Enterprise.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=75088)
-
I beg to differ on that sir, that is a shot of two Nimitz class CVN's getting work done. Look at the elevators and stern's of each carrier, dead give away's for Nimitz class CVN's
-
Yeah that is 2 Nimitz carriers.
-
Thanks, I wasn't sure.
-
since the launch of USS Enterprise (CVN-80) was planned for next year, i'd hope that it would be most of the way along in the basic construction.
-
The latest San Antonio class ship USS Richard M. McCool Jr has a new radar and lacks the low-observable mast enclosures that gave the type its futuristic look.
(https://www.twz.com/uploads/2024/02/06/san-antonio-class-mast-change-differences-flight-ii.jpg?auto=webp&crop=16%3A9&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1920)
-
Wasn't this done in preps of working on the 2nd Batch of the Class? I thought it was for cost savings.
-
I wonder why they did that??
I guess it didn't work as good as they wanted it to maybe?
-
I wonder why they did that??
I guess it didn't work as good as they wanted it to maybe?
Cost reductions. The Flight II San Antonio class ships will have a number of cost reduction features, and the Richard M. McCool Jr is incorporatingsome of them.
-
Cost reductions. The Flight II San Antonio class ships will have a number of cost reduction features, and the Richard M. McCool Jr is incorporatingsome of them.
I can see that. The Burke's III, the new FFG and others, still use normal mast combos.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/427086119_780829317413227_5545257314775405095_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=MZIsDnWUa1sAX9lBv6r&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfA58G-ghYfHM4CVUpI_FqGLsz0pcTtPwsjHD1o46mtEdA&oe=65CA3597)
Ironclad river gunboat USS Cairo - 1862 vs 2022.
She's the sole survivor of the fleet river gunboats built by the Union during the American Civil War.
Cairo was the first ship ever to be sunk by a mine remotely detonated by hand, then found and raised 100 years later, and now she serves as a museum ship in Vicksburg National Military Park, Mississippi, US.
Man, I wish I had known this was there . . . I used to travel through Vicksburg on I-20 a couple times a year when my folks lived in Atlanta and I was out past DFW. Went to the riverside park even but did not know this was in the area.
-
They REALLY need put that indoors soon, I've read reports the wood remains is deteriorating faster.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/425013660_408834381647019_4573446068092587210_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=sRH96w2OiVYAX9hyMLJ&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAZDNygot5IFEA94DbFPsn8AuHX2BI5TLB5dSiHcn9Buw&oe=65CB56CA)
Battleships of the German Navy operating together during maneuvers in 1908.
The warships in the battle line that are closest to the camera are the Deutschland class pre-dreadnoughts. At this time, the Deutschland class was still the backbone of the German Navy. The succeeding class, the Nassau class dreadnoughts, were just coming into service at the time and were still working up.
-
Some historical pictures from Vickers shipbuilders, in Barrow-in-Furness, England.
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b452bfa5dfc6803d3d2cb742da5c277337c4142d/0_0_2000_1488/master/2000.jpg?width=1010&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9ece426e658498785332d07671b163c1)
The launch of HMS Vanguard, 1909, a St Vincent-class dreadnought.
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/601fa8d2372eb51459c931160f5f2aa6de6137a2/0_0_2000_1488/master/2000.jpg?width=1010&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=16fad6100105523390822e838058bb61)
The launch of the Japanese battlecruiser Kongo at Vickers in 1912 - pre-Pagoda.
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c694d6bfd23729ecdcc0b6abdcb4bd860b357d49/0_0_2000_1467/master/2000.jpg?width=1010&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=0f2676b23b5e1b4c9860f22acfc34f18)
Winston Churchill, first lord of the Admiralty, at Vickers in 1915.
-
That's an amazing picture of Churchill!
-
For pucker potential . . .
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/426088449_780226580806834_1397312029711697442_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=b50f6c&_nc_ohc=VRQldynMIQgAX91SbF0&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfBJfYx1htnNPGrn0goCm12UCxzKBb7MBX9GUAnvpy2A4g&oe=65CEAB38)
USS Vermont (BB-20) in a storm in the Atlantic Ocean in December 1913 as taken by an observer on board USS Wyoming (BB-32).
-
That looks like a painting that was scanned from a book, not a photo.
-
Or a still from a expressionist silent movie. The poor resolution produced by early photography really gives it surreal quality.
-
I've been in that sea state (in a CVN)... it reminds you how small even BBs were back then...
-
I've been in that sea state (in a CVN)... it reminds you how small even BBs were back then...
No kidding, 456 feet / 139m in length, that's modern-day frigate dimensions! (Although the the Vermont had higher displacement, obviously)
-
I can only guess what the sea state on the surface was, but I've also felt an SSBN MOVE at depth... that was more worrying than the waves breaking over the bow of the carrier!
-
The picture of the Vermont certainly does not strike me as a photo. Especially, when you look at the water. The wire masts almost real. That said, that must been hell of a ride for the crews manning crows nests.
-
No kidding, 456 feet / 139m in length, that's modern-day frigate dimensions! (Although the the Vermont had higher displacement, obviously)
Even then, the Vermont displaced a comparable amount to a modern Zumwalt class, while being 150 ft shorter.
-
Those were real men back then, just boys fresh faced and no whiskers. You could grow sideburns but no whiskers, that was Officer Country there!
Only the Captain could have a full beard, everyone else had to cut theirs short. Later it became standard practice to trim and shave. Even today, a stash can be the most facial one can get to use, but even that has regulations.
TT
-
In case you haven't heard Battleship New Jersey (BB62) is headed to drydock for maintenance.
First time since 1991.
Here is a pic of that fine Lady in 1982, when she was still an active warship.
(https://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Battleship-dru-dock-675x1024.jpg)
https://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/drydock/
-
I don't see "Rear" Admiral "Snookie" LaValle on the bridge?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b6/34/4d/b6344dbcdbcafc9375deaf2febaf207e.jpg)
TT
-
On the topic of high seas, here's the North Sea in all her fury:
https://twitter.com/HowThingsWork_/status/1757547952568983572
-
And that's why "stowing for sea" is so important! ;D
-
Speaking of waves going over the decks, the Ukrainians just sank another major Russian ship. Landing transport Cesar Kuznikov has joined the Moskva.
-
Cesar Kunikov died on Valentine's Day 1943.
The ship named after him was sunk on Valentine's Day 2024.
Love is in the air.
-
Cesar Kunikov died on Valentine's Day 1943.
The ship named after him was sunk on Valentine's Day 2024.
Love is in the air.
That is some cosmic level stars aligning
-
Either Death loved him, or Love hated him...
-
USS Lexington CV-2 in May 1942 while in Coral Sea prior to her loss.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=75282)
-
Lady Lex's smokestack is so unique.
-
It looks so odd not being faired into the rest of the island like the Yorktown & Essex classes.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/426545498_806119658226146_382399643027244039_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=UIRIkbF9zAQAX_FduHA&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfB0Bkow8KhVpG0RkrVhumxRdPiuk799EkPmjNUlvKv_lA&oe=65D532ED)
Throwback Thursday (1979): USS Tunny (SSN 682) returns to Pearl Harbor after completing a deployment in 1979.
USS Tunny (SSN 682) and U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photo Collection.
What is funny to me, is b/c my father served on HKs and I read Clancy books, the US sub fleet will always be the 688 LAs . . . but they are mostly retired now. His plank-owner sub from when I was a kid was decommissioned six and a half years ago.
-
The dead give away to that era is the uniforms.
The sailors are wearing salt and peppers (white shirt, black trousers) with combination caps.
What gets me is the draft markings. I'm used to seeing them reaching up to the 40s.
-
Wild waves!
-
And tiny ship! ;D
-
The Hai Kun (SS-711), Taiwan’s first domestically made submarine.
(https://www.twz.com/uploads/2024/02/27/Taiwan-Submarine.jpg?auto=webp&crop=16%3A9&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1920)
-
Men, fetch me my bubble bath... I have Submarine warfare on my mind!
Ee-gads.
Wonder what China's response be like?
TT
-
I mean, it's a SSK and on the larger site for one. For the waters around Taiwan that should suffice. It's not like it's meant for month-long deployments in the arctic or something.
And without knowing any details about it...
...it IS a strong step up from the GUPPY II subs that passed their 80th birthday last year or so...
-
Is it armed?
-
Is it armed?
Released information says she's capable of using Mark 48 and Sub Harpoon. Bow looks like it has at two to four torpedo tubes, but it looks airbrushed to hide features.
-
Men, fetch me my bubble bath... I have Submarine warfare on my mind!
Ee-gads.
Wonder what China's response be like?
TT
Considering their main ASW threat is dealing with US SSNs and JMSDF SSKs, I don't think one more SSK changes the calculus.
-
Close-up of the torpedo tubes:
(https://www.twz.com/uploads/2024/02/27/uu731_by.jpg?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1920)
-
Curious...
Has there been any data on fish fired Drone tech? I mean, like the Sub Harpoon, but with a areial drone?
Because I've read Omega Sub series (https://www.goodreads.com/series/69301-omega-sub) back in HS. I even got two of the 6 novels on my shelf. Rather pay cash at a Half-Price or similar store to own the other four, to help the local economy.
But essence, a Sub launched Drone would be just that. A disposable, and hopefully recoverable, aerial companion that can be fired from the mothership sub, while underwater for surveillance purposes. But of course, military won't tell you what capabilities it might carry out. Suicidal charges, cargo carrying (people deployable?) and weapons packages other than the "standard" drone operations.
Imagine being deployed off a coast by a Sub, you and your wet unit are deployed under dark from the mothership, and you need aerial support now. Popping off a trio of tube launched aerial drones, your covered. Also, any aircraft capable of ASW maneuvers could use these as "support" as well.
Now... heh, say a Buff humping into somewhere...
*English translate*
Pilot: It's... launching torpedoes...
Command: Say again? Have you been drinking friend?
Pilot: No sir! I mean... here video uplink...
Command: ... What the... Why? The oceans are miles away...
Buff Pilot: A-yup! Hey Sparky? Launch a few more...
"Sparky": Fish away...
Drone Pilot: Yeah, better than an Arcade...
TT
-
it got considered in the early 2000's, with the lockheed Cormarant UCAV (which was to be fired from payload tubes like the refit Ohio's had and the Virginia's were going to be fitted with). but at the time the tech wasn't really there, nor the military need.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Cormorant
you could probably do it easily now with loitering munitions, though i'm not sure they'd be very useful given that the sub would have to stay near the surface and keep a radio antenna up and transmitting to direct them. kinda defeats the stealth nature of a Sub.
though i suspect we'll be seeing loitering munitions fitted to most surface ships before long
-
Launch and Sat config?
I'm incline to that...
Launch and have someone back in the states control the drone.
TT
-
Launch and Sat config?
I'm incline to that...
Launch and have someone back in the states control the drone.
TT
not sure you can fit a full satcom radio onto loitering munitions. they tend to be pretty small.
that approach was the intended plan for the cormorant though.. along with "onboard AI control". the AI thing didn't quite pan out (note we're still trying to work out the bugs on the UCAV's that did survive the budget crunches of the period), and we had existing drones for ground attack (like the predator series) that were working just fine for the threats of the time, so a sub launched system wasn't all that needed.
-
Iridium phone plus a Raspberry Pi? ???
-
Iridium phone plus a Raspberry Pi? ???
I get what you're saying, but that's really not a hardened avionics package.
-
Hardening is mostly a Faraday cage (not entirely, of course)... smaller stuff will lighten that... :)
-
Hardening is also shock-proofing, use of non-flammables, and making it easy to maintain/replace in the field (or under it, as it were). Then there's ensuring the units don't radiate excessive EMR, can't be jammed easily, and a bunch of other things.
On a parallel note, the cockpits of the EA-6B Prrowlers had literally gold-plated cockpit canopies. Because that was exactly the best way to provide a transparent Faraday cage for the crew to see through. The military's accused of gold-plating; appropriate hardening is why sometimes off-the-shelf gear isn't suitable for continued or high-availability use. The sort of drones used in Ukraine are great examples of where the cheap solutions are entirely appropriate, but they didn't bring down 10 Russian aircraft in 10 days, including an A-50 and two Su-34s, with off-the-shelf kit.
-
Hardening is also shock-proofing, use of non-flammables, and making it easy to maintain/replace in the field (or under it, as it were). Then there's ensuring the units don't radiate excessive EMR, can't be jammed easily, and a bunch of other things.
On a parallel note, the cockpits of the EA-6B Prrowlers had literally gold-plated cockpit canopies. Because that was exactly the best way to provide a transparent Faraday cage for the crew to see through. The military's accused of gold-plating; appropriate hardening is why sometimes off-the-shelf gear isn't suitable for continued or high-availability use. The sort of drones used in Ukraine are great examples of where the cheap solutions are entirely appropriate, but they didn't bring down 10 Russian aircraft in 10 days, including an A-50 and two Su-34s, with off-the-shelf kit.
not to mention the various scrambling/encoding/whatever of the signal to make it hard for an opponent to read or hijack.
and in ukraine, the russians have started using jammer systems for drone control signals mounted on their tanks. the Volnorez system. ironically the soldiers seem to hate them. when they work, they work well. but apparently production quality on the jammers themselves sucks, and they're prone to overheat rapidly.
-
Has there been any data on fish fired Drone tech? I mean, like the Sub Harpoon, but with a areial drone?
The USN tested some prototypes for that 10 years ago. "XFC" UAS. Launch method was with the drone vertically launching from a "Sea Robin" launcher jury-rigged into the surfacing launcher for Tomahawks that is fired from 21-inch torpedo tubes.
https://news.usni.org/2013/12/06/u-s-navy-launches-uav-submarine
XFC itself only had an endurance of 6 hours at 30 knots in the air. For comparison, a 25-kg surface-launched Scan Eagle as deployed be the USN has an endurance of 20 hours at 60 knots, and is pretty much at the low end of naval light surveillance drones.
As far as i know in the USN it never went past these tests and instead an even smaller UAV system was procured in 2020 that launches out of a submarine's 3-inch countermeasures tubes.
There's an Israeli company that offers a similar system launched from countermeasures tubes, and France has tested a comparable system on a Rubis class SSN that ejected from the sub's diver airlock. In all three cases these are very small UAVs with an endurance around one hour and a range of at most 10 km.
-
Project 22160 patrol ship Sergei Kotov was sank last night by Ukrainian V5 naval drones.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHSgsNlXsAQZZcq?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://images.spot.im/image/upload/q_70,fl_lossy,dpr_3,h_54,w_100,c_scale/v200/09d111515543c2e8962b11f047a00dc8)
-
Heh... they have a Navy... just not one with any ships of their own... ;)
-
Reminder ro please avoid real-world politics, guys... do NOT get this thread locked.
-
Aye aye, Jade!
And I have to say, your new avatar is PERFECT! :D
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/429782998_942511867537404_7452181530585216916_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=JXcSsJ4xcMwAX_ySCVQ&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfD6gbtQG7yBSXppCL723WbaqdTW7lfhCvOPV5QjXMFN7w&oe=65F067EA)
Opportunities to cruise aboard a battleship are rare, so two tickets to ride the museum ship USS New Jersey from Paulsboro to a dry dock at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard on March 27 are being auctioned on eBay. Bidding has already reached $4,150.
Huh, the Texas should have done that . . . unless they were worried she would founder.
-
I believe that was a serious concern, yes. I know I was nervous until I saw her with my own eyes pulling into Galveston.
-
Once she was out of her slot and past/over the mudbanks it was supposed to be fine. My wife subscribed me to the preservation group, they shared information and have some cool videos- one I remember was stripping & restoring a AA mount.
-
French Navy Aquitane-class frigate FS Alsace engages a Houthi drone with her 76mm deck gun.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=75446)
-
(https://images.spot.im/image/upload/q_70,fl_lossy,dpr_3,h_100,w_69,c_scale/v200/9bb726e32c7d7d941d9e059661254fd4)
-
Looks like we are getting some BB's (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u-s-navy-revives-iconic-iowa-and-wisconsin-battleships-amidst-modern-naval-evolution/ar-BB1jXjup?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=aa3328b06c0a4ae68450b3294db4e539&ei=1) ready for something, even the Texas could be counted on...
Maybe.
TT
-
Put back on the NVR in 1997. Haven't seen a lot of movement since then, barring one movie appearance ;)
-
There was an article in a professional journal around that time outlining why WWII ships are NOT suitable anymore... safety was good for its time, but not anymore...
-
Biggest issue: we don't have the skilled manpower to operate those systems. There's exactly 6 ships that still have steam turbine propulsion systems in the Fleet manned by Sailor. Four more have CIVMARS manning steam plants. There were still men young enough who had used bagged charge guns and the 5"/38s in the 1980s for active service as well as establishing training.
-
Let's be honest - submarines are the new capital ships for good reasons. The old battlewagons deserve preservation and honouring, but returning them to service in any meaningful manner would consume far too much of limited resources, both material and manpower. My 2 M-bill's worth, anyway.
-
Looks like we are getting some BB's (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u-s-navy-revives-iconic-iowa-and-wisconsin-battleships-amidst-modern-naval-evolution/ar-BB1jXjup?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=aa3328b06c0a4ae68450b3294db4e539&ei=1) ready for something, even the Texas could be counted on...
Maybe.
TT
It could be late, it could be the gin and tonic, but I'm fairly certain that the Iowa is a soon to be commissioned Virginia-class SSN and the Wisconsin will be a Columbia-class SSBN. So, yes, the names have returned to the NVR.
-
Look at it this way, from the pages of the Seventh Carrier, WWIII could be EMP enhanced, to the point of old boilers being the new nuclear.
TT
-
Rickover built reactors that were EMP hardened.
-
Looks like we are getting some BB's (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u-s-navy-revives-iconic-iowa-and-wisconsin-battleships-amidst-modern-naval-evolution/ar-BB1jXjup?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=aa3328b06c0a4ae68450b3294db4e539&ei=1) ready for something, even the Texas could be counted on...
Maybe.
TT
Somehow one of the bot-driven news sites that feed into MSN picked up an old article from 1997 and ran it as brand new, ignoring the source's dateline.
-
MSN's newsfeed really turned to absolute pure garbage in the last few years.
-
Somehow one of the bot-driven news sites that feed into MSN picked up an old article from 1997 and ran it as brand new, ignoring the source's dateline.
Might have que'd off of the Texas undergoing re-conditioning and the New Jersey going in for maintenance as I mentioned.
-
That is a shame...
Would have been nice if this was true. Like the scuttlebutt of a flying carrier from Avengers being built in Nevada of all places.
TT
-
Look at it this way, from the pages of the Seventh Carrier, WWIII could be EMP enhanced, to the point of old boilers being the new nuclear.
TT
I didn’t know anyone else even knew about that series.
Loved all the novels (I think I have all of them).
Edit: nope. Missing the last one. Have to correct that.
Ruger
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/433633712_329184363499433_6577791689045546895_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=bSTFRM-v-kMAX-Lwfew&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfA1jWLppMx3SZF-A4Jwq7Q2DZEQJ9ja_qqDOJ0TExEjnw&oe=660581BC)
Gives a interesting look into how they built the main gun turrets since you can see A open in this photo.
-
"Guided missile frigate USS Halyburton receiving fuel from battleship USS Iowa in the North Atlantic, 6 Sep 1985"
https://twitter.com/HiddenHistoryYT/status/1772398210092265924
-
There's a good story from when New Jersey first went back into service in the 1980s, an escort came alongside to refuel during her shakedown, the lines were sent over, and men on deck were assembled to start rigging bags of coal to send over to the destroyer as a joke.
-
That is HILARIOUS!! :D
-
Battleship North Carolina!
https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjBiWYg
-
Awesome photos!
-
Awesome indeed! :)
-
The North Carolina is the Showboat.
-
This is the Italian Auxiliary Monitor Monte Sabotino. The ship was armed with a single 15" gun that fired a 1,949-pound shell to a range of 21,000 yards. The thing range finder is on the mast. I have no idea how accurate this ship's gun is...
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=75723)
I begin to question if back propulsion is its gun. that thing firing....is akin to me anyways...wacky racers Army Surplus Special firing it's cannon backwards
-
coastal monitors are a great source of weird warship designs, due to their cramming such big guns into such small hulls.
the HMS Lord Clive always caught my eye for it's fixed side mounted 18inch gun.. which apparently was done because the turreted twin 12inch guns weren't seen as enough firepower..
(https://livedoor.blogimg.jp/irootoko_jr/imgs/a/4/a47e1185.jpg)
-
The Soviets played with this as well in WWII, with at least two destroyers being fitted with side-mounted 12" guns (I believe salvaged from the sunken Marat, though I'm not 100% sure on the source) for bombarding German shore positions. Keep the starboard side pointed at the beach, make very limited horizontal adjustments (major ones relied on turning the whole ship), and put heavy shells down on the beach outside the range of return fire. Neat idea, and a better use of old pre-Revolution DDs than just sending them in close to the beach to get savaged by shore batteries or Z-boats.
I've seen a reference to a similar idea being considered for old Wickes and Clemson-class DDs early in WWII for the Pacific island-invasion campaigns, but by the time anyone really worked on solid plans for it the Pearl Harbor ships were coming back into service, and provided the needed fire support instead. (This is also the reason the idea to salvage the aft half of the Arizona to turn into a shore bombardment ship, with a new front end, came to nothing.) A similar idea to convert Omaha-class CLs into jury-rigged Atlanta-style CLAAs, with 5"38s and quad-40mms replacing the 6-inch guns, also died off due to new-construction ships coming into service and making the Omahas- AA ships or standard- completely irrelevant for further use.
-
That gun arrangement makes me wonder if it was faster to circle back around, or simply reverse along the bombardment track... ;)
-
Always like the Sub with the big gun. British Sub H1
-
That gun arrangement makes me wonder if it was faster to circle back around, or simply reverse along the bombardment track... ;)
The risk of air/sub attack would be serious enough to warrant circling- stopping to reverse would leave one very vulnerable, and while ships like this were intended to operate with support, there's not a good way to declare a zero-threat level from enemy activity, as the Americans learned repeatedly off Iwo Jima and Okinawa from air attack.
Circling around also gives time to prep the weapon again- there's no ammo hoist bringing shells up from below decks the way a battleship does, everything is more ad-hoc. In the Soviet case, shells were stored in a deckhouse next to the gun- so, you know, above the main deck, and manhandled viaa small gantry and sheer conscript muscle to bring a few of them to the breech area at a time. (I'm actually unsure about the layout of ships like the Lord Clive, but the sheer size of those shells likely warranted a less manpower-oriented approach). So by circling, you get off your three or four shots, putter around to a refreshed position, and while you're in transit prep your next few salvos.
....Or just slow to essentially steerage speeds, hope the Stukas and U-boats are busy elsewhere, and blaze away at the Wermacht ashore until either you run out of ammo, or find the ship has foundered. Let's be real here, the Soviets were a little more about crude-but-aggressive tactics during that war.
-
Red Army? More like redshirt army.
-
The risk of air/sub attack would be serious enough to warrant circling- stopping to reverse would leave one very vulnerable, and while ships like this were intended to operate with support, there's not a good way to declare a zero-threat level from enemy activity, as the Americans learned repeatedly off Iwo Jima and Okinawa from air attack.
Circling around also gives time to prep the weapon again- there's no ammo hoist bringing shells up from below decks the way a battleship does, everything is more ad-hoc. In the Soviet case, shells were stored in a deckhouse next to the gun- so, you know, above the main deck, and manhandled viaa small gantry and sheer conscript muscle to bring a few of them to the breech area at a time. (I'm actually unsure about the layout of ships like the Lord Clive, but the sheer size of those shells likely warranted a less manpower-oriented approach). So by circling, you get off your three or four shots, putter around to a refreshed position, and while you're in transit prep your next few salvos.
....Or just slow to essentially steerage speeds, hope the Stukas and U-boats are busy elsewhere, and blaze away at the Wermacht ashore until either you run out of ammo, or find the ship has foundered. Let's be real here, the Soviets were a little more about crude-but-aggressive tactics during that war.
risk of air attack would be minimal since it was built in 1915, fitted with the 18in gun in 1918, and was scrapped in 1927.
submarines would have been a concern, but subs were much more unreliable then. she spent most of WW1 guarding various british harbors. participated in a couple of amphibious raids (well escorted), and was meant to be involved in some amphibious landings but they kept getting cancelled.
-
That's probably the best use of that gun arrangement, then... ;D
-
coastal monitors are a great source of weird warship designs, due to their cramming such big guns into such small hulls.
the HMS Lord Clive always caught my eye for it's fixed side mounted 18inch gun.. which apparently was done because the turreted twin 12inch guns weren't seen as enough firepower..
(https://livedoor.blogimg.jp/irootoko_jr/imgs/a/4/a47e1185.jpg)
So what was the recoil like with a gun that big on a ship that small?
-
The Soviets played with this as well in WWII, with at least two destroyers being fitted with side-mounted 12" guns (I believe salvaged from the sunken Marat, though I'm not 100% sure on the source) for bombarding German shore positions. Keep the starboard side pointed at the beach, make very limited horizontal adjustments (major ones relied on turning the whole ship), and put heavy shells down on the beach outside the range of return fire. Neat idea, and a better use of old pre-Revolution DDs than just sending them in close to the beach to get savaged by shore batteries or Z-boats.
I've seen a reference to a similar idea being considered for old Wickes and Clemson-class DDs early in WWII for the Pacific island-invasion campaigns, but by the time anyone really worked on solid plans for it the Pearl Harbor ships were coming back into service, and provided the needed fire support instead. (This is also the reason the idea to salvage the aft half of the Arizona to turn into a shore bombardment ship, with a new front end, came to nothing.) A similar idea to convert Omaha-class CLs into jury-rigged Atlanta-style CLAAs, with 5"38s and quad-40mms replacing the 6-inch guns, also died off due to new-construction ships coming into service and making the Omahas- AA ships or standard- completely irrelevant for further use.
Holy cow, if you could find more on the proposed Omaha conversions, and the Wickes/Clemson ones, I'd love to see more. I've always had a soft spot for the four-stacker cruisers and destroyers, and would love to know more.
-
Holy cow, if you could find more on the proposed Omaha conversions, and the Wickes/Clemson ones, I'd love to see more. I've always had a soft spot for the four-stacker cruisers and destroyers, and would love to know more.
Some of the British C-class WW1 light cruisers underwent similar conversions, particularly the HMS Coventry, HMS Curlew, and (eventually) all of the Carlisle subclass.
HMS Delhi was also refit as an AA ship in the US, but was more of a one-off
-
Circling around also gives time to prep the weapon again- there's no ammo hoist bringing shells up from below decks the way a battleship does, everything is more ad-hoc. In the Soviet case, shells were stored in a deckhouse next to the gun- so, you know, above the main deck, and manhandled viaa small gantry and sheer conscript muscle to bring a few of them to the breech area at a time. (I'm actually unsure about the layout of ships like the Lord Clive, but the sheer size of those shells likely warranted a less manpower-oriented approach). So by circling, you get off your three or four shots, putter around to a refreshed position, and while you're in transit prep your next few salvos.
Lord Clive had a whole narrow-gauge railway on deck to handle the 18" ammo.
British railway mania - not only on land! :cheesy:
-
This popped up on Reddit. HMS Hood under construction in Clydebank, Scotland, approximately 1916-1917.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=75846)
Found this interesting, given the John Brown shipyard has so many cranes surrounding the ship being built. I hadn't realized they needed so many back then.
-
When you think about it, makes sense - everything needs to be lifted into the hull, and more cranes means more progress per day.
-
Funny thing, I hadn't realize the ship is nearly as big as what would become the Iowa Class at 860' long and 104' wide.
-
I like the way that Hood is soo long that the hull extends off the land-ward end of the slip into the gap between the buildings...
-
Holy cow, if you could find more on the proposed Omaha conversions, and the Wickes/Clemson ones, I'd love to see more. I've always had a soft spot for the four-stacker cruisers and destroyers, and would love to know more.
The Omaha-class stuff was... I think Norman Polmer, in his volume on U.S. cruiser designs, I want to say? It's been years since that book graced my shelves due to flooding (thanks, Sandy...), but I'm pretty sure that's where I came across that. Essentially, it would have been a twin-5" on each end replacing the twin-6" mounts, with the casemate guns removed entirely- where the upper casemates had been would have been quad-40mm mounts, although I wouldn't see any reason an open-mount 5"/38 couldn't work just as well there. I don't recall any of the other mods off the top of my head (torpedoes, light AA, etc.), but the other one that does stick in my mind is the removal of the tripod foremast for something more simple and less bulky to avoid blocking as much sky for the new forward 40mm mounts. Since by the time it was possible to start pulling these CLs out of service long enough for a conversion of this scale, though, it was because so many of thew newer Clevelands, improved-Atlantas, and of course newer DDs with their 5"38s, there just wasn't any real reason to waste the time on refitting these old dinosaurs. (I suspect a similar mentality is why the Colorado, for example, retained 5"/25s all the way to the end)
The 4-stackers, I honestly don't remember where I came across that, but like I said, none of that ever progressed as far as I know beyond the cocktail-napkin phase. The Navy lacked heavy ships (most of those were still being refurbished after a Hawaiian mud bath), but there were plenty of near-useless 4-stackers around, and leftover guns from when older ships were scrapped (12" from the Wyoming and prior, I assume it meant). Mount one fixed to one side, steam over to whatever tropical hellhole you want to land Marines on, and start thumping away. Inefficient as all hell, most likely- the fire rate would be awful, with only one jury-rigged gun and likely very little ammo to work with, but it beat nothing. But, luckily, an idea that batshit-crazy went away in favor of using the old battlewagons as they came back online- if a Clemson could fire a 12" shell every, say, 90 seconds (a number I'm pulling out of nowhere I admit, but there wouldn't be a standard hoist or any of that), and a New Mexico could throw twelve 14" every thirty seconds... why bother using up the shipyard resources on the DD idea? I'll see if I can find that reference again, but even back then it was pretty much a 'people got desperate for bad ideas, and sanity won the day' reference. I'm not even entirely sure where the gun would have been mounted on them, though aft seems as likely as any based on the Soviet and British attempts at the same.
-
Here's an interesting video on the 112(!) carriers the US used during WWII: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7jVfcbCxZE
-
The only known photo of the three Littorio-class battleships together, in the brief period between Roma's completion and loss. Taken by an RAF recon plane at La Spezia.
-
This popped up on Reddit. HMS Hood under construction in Clydebank, Scotland, approximately 1916-1917.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83041.0;attach=75846)
Found this interesting, given the John Brown shipyard has so many cranes surrounding the ship being built. I hadn't realized they needed so many back then.
When you think about it, makes sense - everything needs to be lifted into the hull, and more cranes means more progress per day.
looks like there are 3 empty construction slips alongside.. but the slip it is in still has something like 8 cranes. which no doubt were working round the clock. of course at the time the ships were literally built keel up from frames and plates in situe.. you needed a lot of cranes and workers to assemble them in a reasonable time. modern ships tend to be built more as vertical slices end to end, or at least in large chunks. with the chunks being built elsewhere then moves into place. which lets them get away with one or two very large cranes, and fewer workers, but also produce much larger ships.
(hopefulyl these pics show up)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/06/02/business/00shipbuilding2/merlin_171560067_60ed58d2-32ad-4b84-a2ac-f7c00a1c4afc-master1050.jpg)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/06/02/business/00shipbuilding1/merlin_171560085_6e335e23-3247-408a-bbd8-bd96eb00fcf2-master1050.jpg)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/06/02/business/00shipbuilding6/merlin_171560112_50eeb8cf-af34-4ab0-84b9-bc95f59c021d-master1050.jpg)
-
What's being built in these newer yard?
-
What's being built in these newer yard?
if you mean the pics..
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/17/business/economy/how-container-ships-are-built.html
(forgot to post the link)
i think those are cargoships? which given those are far bigger than even the biggest battleships, kinda work as an illustration.
-
Can you imagine putting two of these Big Crago Super ships and making them into ONE Catamaran?
I'd call that a floating "Rigger's Island"...
TT
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Bateaux_comparaison2_with_Allure.svg)
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-275ab1c482bcbae0950a3fa1b5946853)
(https://i.imgur.com/o8dcAob.jpeg)
-
Nice comparison there! I've driven USS ENTERPRISE (CVN-65, as conning officer)... her advantage was speed over those civilian ships... ;)
-
but of course.
plus the fact that knot only can the Nimitz outpace any civilian ship,
but also the fact that Nimitz doesn't have to worry about "gas mileage".
"put her to Max Military power and leave her there..."
as of 2000, the unclass max speed was listed online as 33.6 knots+
-
her advantage was speed over those civilian ships... ;)
Methinks having a carrier air wing, with nucs, might also be advantages.
-
but of course.
plus the fact that knot only can the Nimitz outpace any civilian ship,
but also the fact that Nimitz doesn't have to worry about "gas mileage".
"put her to Max Military power and leave her there..."
as of 2000, the unclass max speed was listed online as 33.6 knots+
The escorts have to worry about fuel though. Sure, the CVN can blast along at flank speed all day and night, but the escort group are going to need to gas up pretty damn frequently if you do that
-
Carriers replenish their escorts all the time... ;)
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Bateaux_comparaison2_with_Allure.svg)
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-275ab1c482bcbae0950a3fa1b5946853)
(https://i.imgur.com/o8dcAob.jpeg)
Interesting part looking at that is . . .
Liberty
Length- 4.5 hexes
Width/Beam- .5 hexes
Draft- 1 level below, 1 level above, superstructure is 2 levels?
T2 tanker/container-conversion ship
Length- 5 hexes
Beam- .67 hexes
Panamax
Length- 12 hexes
Beam- near 2 hexes
Suezmax
Length- 13 hexes
Beam- 2.55 hexes
Draft- 20 meters
Height 68 meters; hull 1-2 levels, superstructure 3-6 levels
-
In that image - those are older & smaller cruise ships. Newer cruise ships (like the Icon of the Seas) which was launched this year is 365m long x 48.5m wide and has 20 decks grossing it at just under 250kT. The old Enterprise was a lot smaller.