BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

Off Topic and Forum Support => Off Topic => Topic started by: Sharpnel on 17 November 2018, 12:49:18

Title: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sharpnel on 17 November 2018, 12:49:18
This is not the new Enterprise, but it is damned close to what it will look like:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Bow_view_of_USS_Gerald_R._Ford_%28CVN-78%29_underway_on_8_April_2017.JPG)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 17 November 2018, 12:56:00
And for the launch of this new thread, a Dauntless launching from the deck of the Enterprise.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/SBD_launch_CV-6_Marcus_Island_1942.jpg/755px-SBD_launch_CV-6_Marcus_Island_1942.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 17 November 2018, 13:02:30
I embarked in ENTERPRISE on two separate tours... good times!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 17 November 2018, 13:21:41
Since no-one thought of the obvious pic to start the thread. Let's launch Enterprise!

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/USS_Enterprise_%28CV-6%29_clears_the_ways.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 17 November 2018, 13:54:42
2 of my other favored Enterprises.  And i'm going to a scale model show on the Hornet today too.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 17 November 2018, 14:50:46
(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/1/uss-enterprise-cvn-65-1980s-george-bieda.jpg)
CV-65, the Eighth United States Navy vessel to bear the name Enterprise.

(https://img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAyOC84MjUvb3JpZ2luYWwvdXNzLWVudGVycHJpc2Utc2xvb3AtMTc3NS5qcGc=)
Sloop-of-War in the Continental Navy of the American Colonies, 1775. The first American Navy vessel to bear the name Enterprise.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 17 November 2018, 14:56:44
The first.

(https://abload.de/img/frc3a9gate-c3a0-la-vo8xdno.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 17 November 2018, 15:19:25
The extant Enterprise is a Ship in Her Majesty's service

(https://i.postimg.cc/YC82LHMS/HMS-Enterprise-H88.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Dragon Cat on 17 November 2018, 16:44:49
What a bunch of enterprising posters we have to start this thread
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Charlie 6 on 17 November 2018, 17:15:22
The name Enterprise hasn't been in constant commission for the US, has it?  Quick check, nope not even the longest gap without one.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 17 November 2018, 17:18:52
The first and original USS Enterprise,  Sloop of War in commission with the Continental Navy in 1775.

(https://www.thevintagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ent_i-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 17 November 2018, 18:24:36
Pokes fun at Klingons, who hate Enterprise!

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: David CGB on 17 November 2018, 18:47:58
The first and original USS Enterprise,  Sloop of War in commission with the Continental Navy in 1775.

(https://www.thevintagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ent_i-1.jpg)
very nice looking vessel
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 17 November 2018, 19:45:10
The first and original USS Enterprise,  Sloop of War in commission with the Continental Navy in 1775.

(https://www.thevintagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ent_i-1.jpg)
I already posted that one....
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 17 November 2018, 19:45:57
A navalised Enterprise  ^-^

(https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAxOC8wODQvb3JpZ2luYWwvc3BhY2Utc2h1dHRsZS1lbnRlcnByaXNlLXdpbmd0aXAtZGFtYWdlLmpwZw==)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 17 November 2018, 23:00:36
I already posted that one....
Sorry, the picture didnt load when i reading it.  :-\

How about USS Wasp...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/USS_Wasp_%28LHD-1%29_Osprey_2.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/cb/31/71/cb3171bb2c3eccefa2aa26bec39880bf--harrier-u-s-navy.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 17 November 2018, 23:10:29
I raise you the CV-12 Hornet
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: chanman on 18 November 2018, 03:06:23
I think the thing that always gets me about the Charles de Gaulle is how short it is forward of the island. The only other carriers that look sort of like that are some of the late/post-war British designs that were retrofitted with angled flight decks

(https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03507/GAULLE-AERIAL_3507747k.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 18 November 2018, 03:40:44
almost looks like she's backwards, if not for that angled deck.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 18 November 2018, 03:45:09
I think that's why she's got that giant arrow painted on the deck. It's so that allied American pilots don't get confused and try to land the wrong way.  ;)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 18 November 2018, 09:08:29
Seeing as we're showing our support for the Colonials...

(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/1/naval-battle-explosion-james-gale-tyler.jpg)

The Spanish-American War!  A conflict that really showed the Americans the importance of having a powerful surface fleet having let their navy slide until even Brasil was challenging it in terms of numbers in the late 1800's.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 18 November 2018, 12:27:18
Some ships during the 1898 era

USS Helena - She is her sister ships sunk six Spanish ships during the conflict. She was a gunboat noted for her rapid-fire guns.

(https://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/img/helena.jpg)

USS Constitution during the Spanish-American War....well she doing better now unlike almost all the ships from the era.

(https://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/img/constfrnt.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ghost0402 on 18 November 2018, 13:37:53
Some ships during the 1898 era

USS Helena - She is her sister ships sunk six Spanish ships during the conflict. She was a gunboat noted for her rapid-fire guns.

(https://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/img/helena.jpg)

USS Constitution during the Spanish-American War....well she doing better now unlike almost all the ships from the era.

(https://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/img/constfrnt.jpg)
]

She does have 25000 acres of Live oak dedicated to just her, and the Navy still owns her too.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 18 November 2018, 15:03:41
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/ad89f69e0f398a280f5ef74e5c73f4d3/tumblr_picugkRbP31s5wh6v_500.png)

Sadly the Fuso is only slightly less bonkers without the photoshop

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/8f4c34b660c5267a9b601465049404d1/tumblr_inline_picvmc5zSD1r4iznv_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 18 November 2018, 15:10:47
Looks like they stuck a sci-fi apartment building on that ship.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 18 November 2018, 15:12:14
So which level had the food court?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 18 November 2018, 15:14:15
And A turret as well. Top photoshop, that man.

So which level had the food court?
Just above the shopping mall.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 18 November 2018, 17:41:25
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46248970

The families want ARA San Juan raised, and the government is saying it's possible but expensive.  Apparently the thing's intact, but imploded, which raises a lot of questions to me about structural stability and just what kind of definitions of 'intact' they're using.  I'll be surprised if they do bring her up, honestly, with the implication of the hull condition and the spread debris field.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/BA8E/production/_98885774_aubmrine_inf640-nc.png)

Is the command compartment really that far back?  I'd expect it to be closer to the sail for surface operations, like on a 688.  I'm guessing the areas forward and a deck up of the crew area on SJ is sonar and torpedo rooms, more classified stuff.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 18 November 2018, 18:35:58
Looks more like the engineering control compartment, with the operations control room directly under the sail with the periscope and other sensor masts penetrating down into it.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 18 November 2018, 18:57:07
I think Feenix has it right.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 18 November 2018, 20:08:41
I'd go with that too, and call it incompletely labeled as far as the pic goes.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 18 November 2018, 20:12:42
Maybe the diagram only shows those systems and compartments relevant to what is suspected to be the San Juan's cause of death?

Actual pics are out btw. Looks somewhat fragmented, as one would expect of a sub post-implosion.

(https://i.postimg.cc/W4G729Gr/f67f0780-eaff-11e8-bfde-9434090d4df7-1320x770-160814.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/XvS86MC4/fa70ba3c-eaff-11e8-bfde-9434090d4df7-1320x770-160814.jpg)

This looks like the bow, with torpedo tubes now visible

(https://i.postimg.cc/Fs6pGkFf/fc5a8422-eaff-11e8-bfde-9434090d4df7-1320x770-160814.jpg)

From the survey pics previously shown, looks like she broke in at least four biggish pieces (and a lot of smaller fragments, yes). Maybe they'll be structurally intact enough to salvage.

(https://i.postimg.cc/d3QwFXck/Capture-3.png)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 18 November 2018, 21:42:07
Seems like their navy is putting up smoke screen to make people think their ship was stern had no issues from shipyard work.

Back to the Spanish-American War era. Which had alot fascinating designs.

USS Iowa, largest US Battleship (Pre-Dreadnought) of the conflict.

(https://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/img/ind.jpg)

I hadn't noticed how many of these older ships had the same hull design echoed by the Zumwalt Class.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 18 November 2018, 22:35:30
Apparently it was a holdover of sorts from the age of sail, and helped to reduce the weight of decks and armored decks on top as well as improve seakeeping in some conditions.  According to Wikipedia, the loss of 3/4 of the Borodinos - all with tumblehome hulls - was part of the reason why it fell out of favor, citing "extreme instability" when the hull's breached and there's flooding.

Also, RE: San Juan: damn, that thing's definitely done.  I had trouble believing that an imploded hull would be "intact" as described.  I'll call it an error in translation and say "it's not so much in one piece as one pile" instead.  With the clear stress the ship's been through, I daresay it's not coming up and raising it certainly won't bring back her whole crew.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 18 November 2018, 23:48:25
I had trouble believing that an imploded hull would be "intact" as described.
The pressure vessel of the submarine is intact. The hull itself imploded, with the pile being those parts of it outside the pressure vessel that ripped off from it. The four large parts are therefore the pressure vessel itself, the bow section with the torpedo room, the aft section where the propeller is mounted and the sail.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: beachhead1985 on 18 November 2018, 23:53:36
But is the equipment to do that just sitting around somewhere? Who has that?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 19 November 2018, 02:00:03
The Argentine Govt acknowledges it's doable. The (apparent) question is financing.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 19 November 2018, 04:04:00
(http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/ussmaine/maine3.gif)

(http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/ussmaine/maine2.gif)

The USS Maine, a curious ship that was actually based on and built to fight the Brazilian Battleship Aquidaba

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Aquidaba-2.jpg)

(https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/brazilan-cruiser-aquidaba.jpg?w=1280&h=1008)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 19 November 2018, 08:45:05
Wait...the Main was made to fight a Brazilian PreDreadnought??
Why??
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 19 November 2018, 08:48:04
Wait...the Main was made to fight a Brazilian PreDreadnought??
Why??
because USA considered the Americas her own turf. Manifest Destiny and Monroe Doctrine.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 19 November 2018, 10:40:43
And the Brazilian ship was more powerful than anything the USN had at the time.  The US navy was in a terrible state and it took the wake up call of the Brazilians building a trio of pretty powerful ships that were more potent than anything the US had to shake them out of their complacency and start to order some more powerful ships like the Maine and her close sister the Texas, as well as the three Indiana class ships which were classed as (and in reality were) coast defence ships, the Maine was an armoured cruiser and the Texas was also seen as an armoured cruiser (later reclassified as a battleship)

But the two Brazilian battleships

Riachuleo

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Riachuelo_1885.jpg)

and the Aquidabã

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Aquidaba-2.jpg)

were waaaaaaay ahead of anything the USN had and that prompted this quote

"if all this old navy of ours were drawn up in battle array in mid-ocean and confronted by the Riachuelo it is doubtful whether a single vessel bearing the American flag would get into port"  and helped give the US government the kick up the butt it needed to actually fund the navy.

And speaking of early US Battleships, the Kearsarge class was quite unique (although not the only USN battleship to do so with mounting 8-inch guns above the 12 or in this case 13-inch main guns)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Uss_kentucky_bb-6.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 19 November 2018, 11:46:18
I dunno, predreads aren't my thing, but the Kearsarge looks particularly ugly even for a predread.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 19 November 2018, 11:49:58
I dunno, predreads aren't my thing, but the Kearsarge looks particularly ugly even for a predread.

"Hold my beer."

+USS Nebraska

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Z4wHzb0v6cY/U61X8jgKJQI/AAAAAAAAARE/6ipDYZZTMGg/s1600/USS+Nebraska+BB-14+Norfolk,+April+20,+1918.jpg)

(Mid-size batteries again mounted atop the main batteries, though square-shaped instead of rounded like on the prior ships. The dazzle-camo makes that hard to make out, but trust me, it's there. The colors for this are marked as grey, black, white, green, and red)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 19 November 2018, 11:57:23
It's those long-barrelled casemate guns and spindly masts that get me. Damn thing looks like it has no sense of proportion at all.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 19 November 2018, 12:05:04
Reading about the Virginias on Wiki provided a rather interesting what-if. The winning armament was 4x 12" plus 8x 8" - but it only beat out the alternative of 10x 10" by a small margin. US almost got the first dreadnought before the British started building theirs!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: grimlock1 on 19 November 2018, 12:19:32
And speaking of early US Battleships, the Kearsarge class was quite unique (although not the only USN battleship to do so with mounting 8-inch guns above the 12 or in this case 13-inch main guns)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Uss_kentucky_bb-6.jpg)
Does that have a bow turret and broadsides?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 19 November 2018, 13:05:38
Does that have a bow turret and broadsides?

She's got a fore and aft turret both with 2 x 13 inch and 2 x 8-inch in the arrangement you see, and then there's 5-inch guns along the side.

Remember that at the time, the gunnery ranges were short, 4000 yards was long range by the standards of the time and 2000 yards was a bit more like it for accurate shooting. The big guns shoot fairly slowly and because of poor fire control at the time, you had to be lucky to land a hit with a big gun.  So lots of quick firing 5 or 6-inch guns tended to be the real main armament, at those sort of ranges.

Only the most heavily armoured sections could resist gunfire from those size guns and with their rate of fire and in turn better hit chance (you're slinging more poo at the wall than the 13-inchers who are firing 1 every minute or so), the smaller guns are going to do more damage.

The USN was an early adopter of an intermediate caliber gun with 8 and 7 inch guns appearing on USN Battleships, again with them its the same kind of principle as the 6-inch weapons, a higher rate of fire and at typical battle ranges an 8-inch guns got near the same armour penetrating punch of a 13-inch round, the big difference is the amount of boom.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 19 November 2018, 14:11:41
Spanish Battleship Pelayo, commissioned in 1885 - here in 1889:

(https://abload.de/img/pelayo_1889elew4.jpg)

Still carried her main armament in barbettes, i.e. covered ring mounts instead of turrets: a 12.6-inch each forward and aft, and a 11-inch on either side forward of the superstructure.

Secondary armament considered of a 6.3-inch bow gun and six 4.7-inch guns in casemates on either broadside. Just before the war these guns were to be refitted by a uniform battery of 5.5-inch guns (bow gun plus four each broadside), although this was cancelled as she was rushed back into service - even if she never took part in any battle in that war.

Her main armament was used in the 1909 Rif War to bombard the Moroccan coast. Rate of fire was 5 minutes per round per gun for the 12.6-inch, the 11-inch fired at one round per minute.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 19 November 2018, 16:02:26
Almost looks like stately heavy armed smaller Titanic.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: beachhead1985 on 19 November 2018, 18:16:43
The Argentine Govt acknowledges it's doable. The (apparent) question is financing.

Okay...colour me impressed as all hell.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 19 November 2018, 19:18:40
Okay...colour me impressed as all hell.
I mean... caveat here, doable and feasible are two somewhat different things. Like a billion dollars different, apparently, unless Ocean Infinity comes up with a much lower cost estimate. I don't think anybody can shell out that kind of change on the spot, except maybe the US, and why would they get involved...?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 20 November 2018, 05:55:37
Unfortunately Argentina can't really afford the cost of the salvage op, and its not going to be quick, easy or cheap. But any further discussion about that will probably happily jump into Rule 4 territory so lets not go there.

Instead.

Danton class Battleships!

When designed they would have been the most powerful ships in the world, when actually launched they were amongst the worse.  Caught out by the changing times and hamstrung by the inefficiency of French naval yards (and their almost compulsive need to tinker with ships which in the Danton classes case even saw some ships getting completed sections and rooms ripped out and rebuilt to a new design), they were amongst the best pre-dreadnoughts.

That entered service in 1911 when Dreadnoughts had been around nearly 6 years and the first Super Dreadnoughts were coming online.


(https://www.wrecksite.eu/img/wrecks/dreanought_danton_2.jpg)

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5gCoDIfoPxA/VstDJXqSd6I/AAAAAAAAIrU/fD7L7YHh5pc/s1600/BB-Danton1909-1.png)

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2785/2654/products/l4869_f95482a6-554b-4fcd-b103-782b71d7f89f_1024x1024.jpg?v=1527676972)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 20 November 2018, 09:34:16
Weren't the main turrets on the edges of the hull vulnernable to being knocked out?
Picture of the Danton shows a turret on side highly vulnerable below the turret itself. I must been thin armor belt where that is.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 20 November 2018, 10:30:31
Not as vulnerable as one might think, the turret sits atop a thickly armoured barbette which covered the shell and propellant hoists which was in turn covered by the armour of the hull.  And hitting a fairly small target at combat ranges wasn't easy.
Of course with battleships, really at the ranges you would be expected to fight at, you're really aiming at centre of mass as hitting a specific part of a ship was exceptionally difficult to the point of not being worth aiming at. 
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 20 November 2018, 11:07:18
What wing-turrets like that DO end up doing though is make for a ship that really likes rolling- the weight on the flanks makes for a tough time in rough seas, one of the reasons the British were so happy to get away from doing that with their later dreadnought designs (and eventually the Germans as well). It also, obviously, means that portside wing mounts can't fire to starboard and vice-versa, so that's not particularly ideal- I always wonder what at must have been like to be in a far-sided wing mount on one of the dreadnoughts at Jutland, waiting for a shell to crash in and kill you but not being able to do much to fight back.

There are advantages to it too, of course, otherwise no one would ever have done it. One thing it does is move those midships gun mounts out to the sides instead of along the center (such as the midship mounts on, say, the Arkansas or Fuso), which means the area used for the boilers and engines aren't being used for ammo hoists and such- that means the ship isn't as cramped in the middle, and doesn't have to be as long. That in turn means a shorter armor belt, and thus less weight having to be devoted to a long belt- which means either a savings of weight that can be used elsewhere, or simply a thicker belt than you otherwise could have done for the same weight. The Nassau, Germany's first dreadnought, paints this picture pretty well for an early dreadnought design- she's stumpy compared to her foe across the North Sea, but much tougher thanks to the hexagonal arrangement of her guns. She also can only point eight in any direction at once, of course, which isn't ideal. She's shorter than Dreadnought because she moved guns to the sides, and thus made for a more compact arrangement. However, the Americans accomplished the same with the South Carolina- eight guns pointed on the broadside, short and stout design, etc. despite only using four turrets instead of six- superfiring turrets made for a greater metacentric height, but a far more efficient way of doing things.

(Nassau, from an airship, showing her unique arrangement)

(http://i42.tinypic.com/33048xv.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: grimlock1 on 20 November 2018, 12:24:17
Idle question:  I was at the USS Midway museum a few years back and I had the chance to speak with a docent who used to fly off the Midway.  He described landing on the Midway to be more difficult than some other ships, because she had a more pronounced rolling motion.  Given that I know next to nothing about naval architecture, what should I feed into Google to get a deeper answer to this question?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 20 November 2018, 12:34:09
Idle question:  I was at the USS Midway museum a few years back and I had the chance to speak with a docent who used to fly off the Midway.  He described landing on the Midway to be more difficult than some other ships, because she had a more pronounced rolling motion.  Given that I know next to nothing about naval architecture, what should I feed into Google to get a deeper answer to this question?

For Midway specifically? Or for ships in-general?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 20 November 2018, 13:23:19
(Nassau, from an airship, showing her unique arrangement)
Not quite unique; the layout was retained for the followon Helgoland class laid down the next year.

The class that followed that - the Kaiser class - mixed it all up as far as typologies are concerned:
- one turret forward
- one turret each side in echelons midships (not parallel, and not mounted such that they could have actually fired across the ship either...)
- two turrets in superfiring arrangement aft

The König class that followed that then replaced the midship turrets with a single one on the center line and moved the second one into a superfiring configuration with the forward turret.
And the Bayern class after that simply removed the centerline midship turret.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ruger on 20 November 2018, 14:04:27
Idle question:  I was at the USS Midway museum a few years back and I had the chance to speak with a docent who used to fly off the Midway.  He described landing on the Midway to be more difficult than some other ships, because she had a more pronounced rolling motion.  Given that I know next to nothing about naval architecture, what should I feed into Google to get a deeper answer to this question?

The Wikipedia entry for the class as a whole has an explanation on the rolling...it was on Midway only and after she was bulged in 1986.

Ruger
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 20 November 2018, 15:01:09
...yeah, I meant 'unique' more in a 'Germans tried this and nobody else' way.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 20 November 2018, 15:07:51
So the Midway refit caused the rolling?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: grimlock1 on 20 November 2018, 15:34:09
The Wikipedia entry for the class as a whole has an explanation on the rolling...it was on Midway only and after she was bulged in 1986.

Ruger
The article on Midway, herself, mentions the blisters as an attempted fix for "persistent seakeeping issues."  I have found reference to green water (https://www.midwaysailor.com/midway/history.html) coming over the flight deck, as far back as 1945, but I'm looking for a bit more on the why.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Fat Guy on 20 November 2018, 16:17:28
Midway was always somewhat top heavy due to it's armored deck.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 20 November 2018, 16:57:19
Midway was always somewhat top heavy due to it's armored deck.
That'll throw her center of mass higher up, yeah, and make her rolls worse.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: God and Davion on 20 November 2018, 17:44:44
...yeah, I meant 'unique' more in a 'Germans tried this and nobody else' way.

Actually, AFAIK, the hexagonal arrangement is used in the Kawachi-class, too. Since both of them lacked turbines, they needed more room for machinery. The hexagonal arrangement allowed extra space without turrets and hoists in the middle of the machinery space.

Midway was always somewhat top heavy due to it's armored deck.

It was nicknamed the "Rock and roll carrier" after the second refit. There was even a third refit to correct the problem and it just worsened it. In one storm  she rolled so much that she barely avoided capsizing.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 20 November 2018, 18:26:18
On that note, Ride The St. Lo! (you must be this tall)
(https://www.dondennisfamily.com/USS_St_Lo/new_photos/pics/carrier_rock_roll.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 21 November 2018, 04:48:55
On that note, Ride The St. Lo! (you must be this tall)
(https://www.dondennisfamily.com/USS_St_Lo/new_photos/pics/carrier_rock_roll.jpg)

First thought, that's not too bad.

Second thought, hang on, that's a carrier!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 21 November 2018, 08:48:27
Woah! They need to do some serious tie downs for their aircraft!  I've been on ship pitching before, but not side to side that badly.  Eesh

No wonder the US Navy isn't as interested in smaller carriers (aside from other reasons).  They'd be losing multi-million (billion?) aircraft left and right...

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=49223)
This is an aircraft carrier in rough seas. I can picture if the ship could talk it would be saying "Woah! Sorry guys i'm bit tipsy!"

This Q/A article (https://www.quora.com/How-can-an-aircraft-carrier-survive-a-sea-state-of-8-and-9) on Quora had interesting answer about IF  Aircraft Carriers could survive sea states as high as 8 & 9. The answer is NO. 


EDIT: Sorry I linked the wrong picture to my post.  I did mean remain operational launch planes. Again i wasn't clear enough.  xp
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 21 November 2018, 09:04:02


This Q/A article (https://www.quora.com/How-can-an-aircraft-carrier-survive-a-sea-state-of-8-and-9) on Quora had interesting answer about IF  Aircraft Carriers could survive sea states as high as 8 & 9. The answer is NO.
actually, the answer is YES. But the question is can the carrier go through such sea states unscathed? No. And that's what the Typhoon Cobra was.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 21 November 2018, 14:25:27
"Survive" sure.  "Remain air-operations capable without damage" hell no.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 22 November 2018, 06:52:51
"Survive" sure.  "Remain air-operations capable without damage" hell no.

That's "Remain operational", not "Survive". Survive is maintain watertight integrity, and keep the equipment in working order.

I've been on ships that have barely survived, let alone remaining operational. Sailing through polar storms in the Great Southern Ocean is NOT recommended. :P
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 22 November 2018, 10:16:13
A Type 55 Guided Missile Destroyer.  This one four ships the PLAN has commissioned as guard ships for their growing Aircraft Carrier groups.
These ships have been compared to Ticos, since their heavy missile tubes, and their tonnage is the 12,000 to 13,000 range.  They've been referred to as Cruisers by some military observers.

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=49225)

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=49227)

By the way, Happy Thanksgiving for everyone who celebrates it!!
(https://wowsp-wows-na.wgcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/tmb/0754578e-ac2a-11e6-a201-d89d6715223c_1200x.png)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 24 November 2018, 10:20:44
Type 55 has a lot of firepower, with the Aegis. Looks to be a good ship.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 24 November 2018, 10:29:26
Damn that looks like a good slice of pumpkin pie.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 25 November 2018, 00:09:48
Damn that looks like a good slice of pumpkin pie.
Personally i like those bridge wings myself.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 25 November 2018, 09:23:20
Back to pictures...
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=49272)
This is the Sagiri, she was one of Japan's Fubuki-class destroyers authorized in the in 1920s. In there time, they were regarded as the most powerful destroyers in the world. Her class weighted in at max at 2,000 tons, for its weight it was speedy with maximum speed at 38 knots if she didn't have worry about refueling.  Her main batteries consisted of 6 x 127mm cannons in twin turrets (1 forward, two aft), nine torpedo tubes, 36 depth charges (isn't that alot?) and with 30 mixed caliber of light arms meant to shoot down aircraft.

She was part of the task forces attacking Pearl Harbor and was assisting in the invasion of various islands during the first years of the war.  She was sunk by unlikely ally ship.  Dutch Submarine, the  HNLMS K XVI , which her torpedoes detonated Sagiri's aft magazine. However, the submarine didn't fair well as in next day K XVI was sunk by Japanese Submarine the next day.

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 25 November 2018, 11:30:26
36 depth charges (isn't that alot?)
Depends on how they're laid out. As built the Fubukis only carried 18 (ONI says 14) in racks of nine (or seven) for two depth charge throwers. Late during the war two additional racks and throwers were added.

British destroyers built around the same time typically carried either 20 or 30 depth charges for ASW-focussed ships (B- and D-class) in throwers with racks of ten each.
French destroyers combined chutes with racks of eight to ten with throwers with racks of three each for e.g. 32 on the Chacal class as built - these were slightly larger than the Fubukis at 2100t standard.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 30 November 2018, 11:07:03
Food for thought

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25218/we-have-the-first-official-report-on-norways-sunken-frigate-and-it-isnt-pretty

TIL the lead ship of the class preceding the Fridtjof Nansens, the HNoMS Oslo, also ran aground and sank in 199-something.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 30 November 2018, 14:00:44
Unsealed propeller tunnels is definitely a scary thing, considering that the damage was at the tail end of the ship and the flooding spread through there all the way to midships.  No wonder it went down with that level of damage, it was like Titanic springing leaks across half her length.  Just, this time from the inside, through the shaft runways instead of the hull.

Bad news for the F-100s if it's a design fault, or else the Norwegians haven't been keeping up their maintenance properly.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 30 November 2018, 14:02:28
That would sink it, no doubt. Hard to stop that kind of flooding under even the best circumstances (and these definitely weren't!).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 30 November 2018, 14:13:27
Yeah, but that cause of accident though:

"Yeah hi Tanker, this is Frigate, we're getting awfully close, so you go here and I go there and we'll be cool, aright?"

"Gotcha Frigate... uhhh, aren't you gonna veer off like we said?"

"Naw man it's cool, we've got room, I'm just gonna pass this here long low building between us first"

"...what long low building are you talking about?"

"Oh, fudge nuggets"
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 30 November 2018, 14:27:11
Yeah, but that cause of accident though:

"Yeah hi Tanker, this is Frigate, we're getting awfully close, so you go here and I go there and we'll be cool, aright?"

"Gotcha Frigate... uhhh, aren't you gonna veer off like we said?"

"Naw man it's cool, we've got room, I'm just gonna pass this here long low building between us first"

"...what long low building are you talking about?"

"Oh, fudge nuggets"

Not a word of it is untrue, and it's got me laughing hard enough that my chest hurts. Bravo, sir, you win an internet cookie.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 30 November 2018, 18:03:40
This won't be helping sales of the F-100 derivatives will it?


I doubt the Australians will go for more than their current 3 Hobart class and I doubt the bids for Canadian or US frigates-of-the-future will be helped


Reading the linked report, it sounds like a couple of major errors in ship handling that will probably be career ending for a few officers but I don't like the sound of the failures of damage control and containment


I suspect everyone else will be looking at their ship design to see what they can learn too
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Cannonshop on 30 November 2018, 20:37:41
Food for thought

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25218/we-have-the-first-official-report-on-norways-sunken-frigate-and-it-isnt-pretty

TIL the lead ship of the class preceding the Fridtjof Nansens, the HNoMS Oslo, also ran aground and sank in 199-something.

In valhalla the builders ancestors gaze upon this, and palm their faces in shame.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 30 November 2018, 22:32:05
In valhalla the builders ancestors gaze upon this, and palm their faces in shame.
And remember they crafted such amazing boats out of planks on top of each other using simple tools including ax, what a work of art the Longboat is.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Cannonshop on 01 December 2018, 00:29:31
And remember they crafted such amazing boats out of planks on top of each other using simple tools including ax, what a work of art the Longboat is.

proof that ancient Scandinavians would never have made that kind of design error;

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yB4s3nQtZqE/hqdefault.jpg)

these were the original frigate, able to go anywhere.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 01 December 2018, 02:31:12
Crane on site, waiting for better weather. Here's hoping.

(https://i.postimg.cc/LX7FW5Cc/d7f0c0dcgy1fxodotz0ckj20w60i376g.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 01 December 2018, 21:36:21
This won't be helping sales of the F-100 derivatives will it?


I doubt the Australians will go for more than their current 3 Hobart class and I doubt the bids for Canadian or US frigates-of-the-future will be helped


Reading the linked report, it sounds like a couple of major errors in ship handling that will probably be career ending for a few officers but I don't like the sound of the failures of damage control and containment


I suspect everyone else will be looking at their ship design to see what they can learn too

DC is the first step to losing. There isn't a single ship today that can remain operationally capable after a major DC incident, while it remains a high training priority and can keep a crew alive and a ship afloat after major damage, ships are pretty useless after major compartments are lost.

The thing that concerns me about this is the reliance on AIS. It's a good system for what it is, but it's not a navigation system! Vessels still need to use their organic sensors to detect and track all contacts and should be constantly watching CPA of every closing contact in confined waters. A warship that can't watch four contacts in a confined waterway and move to avoid them is no warship.

The design issues can be resolved in due course, but the training issues need to be resolved immediately, they are the ones that will cause major loss of life.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 05 December 2018, 11:17:48
Update

"Missiles have been removed from sunken #Norwegian #frigate #HELGEINGSTAD. This is the salvage plan: fuel is removed, chains placed under the ship; crane ship lifts the frigate into a flooded floating drydock which is pumped out to take the frigate to base"

(https://i.postimg.cc/Hncqg1cT/Dto-OJZp-Wo-AA4-Qqz.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/Y05J2DYY/Dto-OJ6-RX4-AAnj53.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/DfS0ZW1w/Dto-OKk-KW4-AA6-Tez.jpg)

source: https://twitter.com/CavasShips/status/1070184442818453504/photo/1
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 05 December 2018, 19:16:59
Where's Dirk Pitt and Al Giordino of NUMA?

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 05 December 2018, 19:52:30
Where's Dirk Pitt and Al Giordino of NUMA?

Probably right there, having been brought in as a salvage consultant but subsequently recruited by NATO covert ops to help foil a dastardly plot by a secret organisation to steal the guidance system of a prototype hypersonic antiship missile carried onboard for sale to the highest bidder

Unfortunately they ran into spies, femme fatales and combat divers of the Russian, Chinese, Israeli and Iranian Navies all aimed at the same objective. Much derring-do and blood-chilling underwater combat was had and the guidance system was safely restored into NATO hands

Whereupon Dirk discovered he was really employed by a rogue admiral who wanted the system so he could fit it onto an air-launched cruise missile which could deliver a nerve agent precisely into the HQ of NATO Enhanced Forward Presence in the Baltics, with planted evidence pointing at Russia and precipitating WW3 thus avenging said rogue admiral on all participants of the senseless Cold War which deprived him of his daughter many decades ago

After a thrilling car, helicopter and private jet chase Dirk managed to engineer the lawndarting of the admiral's modified Su-27 destroying the missile and nerve gas, and has the admiral arrested by the real Military Intelligence after which he goes back to the quiet life of actually raising the Helge Ingstad for reals.

All of which happened without a peep in the media, I swear. Ah the things our Govts cover up.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 05 December 2018, 20:19:21
I think your forgetting the Viking Treasure Ships, a three longboat fleet carrying pre-Columbian artifacts that sank near the salvage area in 999 AD. Worth $100 Billion Euro today, including an ' Eye of the Jaguarundi ', a 10 carat natural black diamond worth $10 Million Euro.

TT

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 05 December 2018, 22:17:02
Don't forget the running battle within the frigate that's happening during the salvage operation fought against Nazi mafiosos, using Roman Gladii that were unearthed because the ship managed to land right on a lost predreadnought that was filled with them.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 05 December 2018, 23:18:36
And do not forget the detour to "borrow" a unique vintage car that happens to be on their escape route which is in serviceable order, fully fuelled and with keys left in the ignition.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 06 December 2018, 10:13:56
Where's Dirk Pitt and Al Giordino of NUMA?

TT

Either embroiled in another of their writer's lawsuits or making cameos in half-assed sequels, based on the past 20 years.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 06 December 2018, 12:01:56
Bit of a departure for the Royal Navy, but the 4 new nuclear ballistic missile subs will be named the Dreadnought class and not apparently have contiguous D-names. That opens up the field considerably.

Boat 1 - Dreadnought
Boat 2 - Valiant
Boat 3 - ?
Boat 4 - ?

Place your bets gentlemen. I've got Warspite and Ramillies.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: phoenixalpha on 06 December 2018, 12:45:52
Boat 3 - Incompetence
Boat 4 - Never Built due to 2nd English Civil War.

:)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 06 December 2018, 12:48:13
Where's Dirk Pitt and Al Giordino of NUMA?

TT

Gotten old and passed the baton . . . besides, its not deep enough to be interesting!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 06 December 2018, 14:01:18
Bit of a departure for the Royal Navy, but the 4 new nuclear ballistic missile subs will be named the Dreadnought class and not apparently have contiguous D-names. That opens up the field considerably.

Boat 1 - Dreadnought
Boat 2 - Valiant
Boat 3 - ?
Boat 4 - ?

Place your bets gentlemen. I've got Warspite and Ramillies.
Vanguard. Victorious.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 06 December 2018, 14:14:33
Vanguard. Victorious.
Both these along with Vigilant and Vengeance are the current British SSBNs.

Huh. Vengeance. That suddenly puts Revenge well in the running. I thought it was a bit un-PC for the modern world. But what is it if not a statement of intent anyway.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 06 December 2018, 14:33:49
Bit of a departure for the Royal Navy, but the 4 new nuclear ballistic missile subs will be named the Dreadnought class and not apparently have contiguous D-names. That opens up the field considerably.

Boat 1 - Dreadnought
Boat 2 - Valiant
Boat 3 - ?
Boat 4 - ?

Place your bets gentlemen. I've got Warspite and Ramillies.
Fearless, Defiance
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Bosefius on 06 December 2018, 16:49:10
It's been a while but here's your friendly reminder to be aware of the site rules when posting.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 December 2018, 20:10:16
But what is it if not a statement of intent anyway.
Ultima Ratio Mundo?  Considering what she's a harbinger of.

Then again, how about HMS Harbinger?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: beachhead1985 on 06 December 2018, 22:00:53
Boat 3 - Incompetence
Boat 4 - Never Built due to 2nd English Civil War.

:)

Well, if they are anything like the boats we bought...

Probably right there, having been brought in as a salvage consultant but subsequently recruited by NATO covert ops to help foil a dastardly plot by a secret organisation to steal the guidance system of a prototype hypersonic antiship missile carried onboard for sale to the highest bidder

Unfortunately they ran into spies, femme fatales and combat divers of the Russian, Chinese, Israeli and Iranian Navies all aimed at the same objective. Much derring-do and blood-chilling underwater combat was had and the guidance system was safely restored into NATO hands

Whereupon Dirk discovered he was really employed by a rogue admiral who wanted the system so he could fit it onto an air-launched cruise missile which could deliver a nerve agent precisely into the HQ of NATO Enhanced Forward Presence in the Baltics, with planted evidence pointing at Russia and precipitating WW3 thus avenging said rogue admiral on all participants of the senseless Cold War which deprived him of his daughter many decades ago

After a thrilling car, helicopter and private jet chase Dirk managed to engineer the lawndarting of the admiral's modified Su-27 destroying the missile and nerve gas, and has the admiral arrested by the real Military Intelligence after which he goes back to the quiet life of actually raising the Helge Ingstad for reals.

All of which happened without a peep in the media, I swear. Ah the things our Govts cover up.

Cannot express how thrilled I am to see others hold the same opinion i do of those books/characters.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ruger on 06 December 2018, 22:21:03
Bit of a departure for the Royal Navy, but the 4 new nuclear ballistic missile subs will be named the Dreadnought class and not apparently have contiguous D-names. That opens up the field considerably.

Boat 1 - Dreadnought
Boat 2 - Valiant
Boat 3 - ?
Boat 4 - ?

Place your bets gentlemen. I've got Warspite and Ramillies.

Maybe time for a new HMS Ark Royal, HMS Revenge or HMS Repulse?

Ruger
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 06 December 2018, 22:26:29
British names seem so much cooler then American ship names. I hope they use something that hasn't been used a lot.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: chanman on 06 December 2018, 23:57:47
British names seem so much cooler then American ship names. I hope they use something that hasn't been used a lot.

Gunboats, minesweepers, and other minor vessels have had some interesting names

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Cockchafer) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Cockchafer)) (It's a beetle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tickler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tickler) (Delicious irony)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Spanker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Spanker) (understatement)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Cheerful (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Cheerful) (Irony again)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Decoy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Decoy) (and again)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Surprise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Surprise) (and again)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_named_HMS_Terror (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_named_HMS_Terror) (Appropriate)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 07 December 2018, 03:42:13
In fairness, we named a submarine the U.S.S. Wahoo.  Granted, it's a type of fish, but still.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 07 December 2018, 06:52:38
Maybe time for a new HMS Ark Royal, HMS Revenge or HMS Repulse?

Ruger
Ark Royal is more for carriers, but Revenge and Repulse are excellent choices


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Surprise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Surprise) (and again)

Nothing wrong with that one :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G95g0vzTAKI

In fairness, we named a submarine the U.S.S. Wahoo.  Granted, it's a type of fish, but still.
As well as Bass, Cuttlefish, Salmon, Cod, Mackerel, Bream, Pomfret, Herring, Hake, Haddock, Halibut... while I understand naming conventions are one thing, I don't want the fleet review to read like a menu...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 07 December 2018, 07:14:42
British names seem so much cooler then American ship names. I hope they use something that hasn't been used a lot.

I quite liked the old American convention of naming after cities, states and battles. Not so much the current convention for naming after people.

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 07 December 2018, 08:08:30
I like the old American thematic naming conventions of the Early American ships and the British ships.

Early American ships like Alliance, Hornet, Hyannis, Congress, Merrimack, Hyannis for example.

British had the Thunderer, Powerful, Iron Duke, Tiger, Invincible etc.

Funny thing the French has neat names to like the le Terrible.

Current navies go Singapore has best ship names in recrnt years. Since they name ships with English western thematic names like Intrepid etc.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 07 December 2018, 11:10:34
I quite liked the old American convention of naming after cities, states and battles. Not so much the current convention for naming after people.

Naming after people is not just current . . . its been done for a while, EG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_%28DD-245%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_%28DD-245%29) which I always remember b/c of its history.  Even on the subs it varied in the Nuc Age, some of the early boomers were the Washington/Allen class while the attack subs were still being named for fish a la the Sturgeon which was 60s to 2004.  The head scratcher to me is we have Ohio SSBN and Virginia SSN in the fleet at the same time- used to you could pick up a techno-thriller and figure out if it was about a SSBN or SSN just from the name of the sub!

And just b/c I mentioned her, the Reuben James before US entry into WWII . . . apt since today is the 7th.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/USS_Reuben_James_%28DD-245%29_on_29_April_1939.jpg/1280px-USS_Reuben_James_%28DD-245%29_on_29_April_1939.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 07 December 2018, 11:12:28
And since it is December 7th . . .

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5c/e5/ad/5ce5ada006a93f9771293a7fb74dcde1.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ghost0402 on 07 December 2018, 13:59:37
British names seem so much cooler then American ship names. I hope they use something that hasn't been used a lot.
USS Cowpens would like a word with you...  ;D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 07 December 2018, 15:15:10
Such a nice and sad picture of the USS Arizona
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 07 December 2018, 17:22:24
The US Navy created a video (https://youtu.be/IMb2NU7fWEM) for the 77th Anniversary of the attack of Pearl Harbor.  It's creative thing they did...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 08 December 2018, 06:57:55
If you folks are after a good alternate history story with lots of naval goings on and general conflict -

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/keynes-cruisers.388788/   - Part 1

 https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/keynes-cruisers-volume-2.451883/  - Part 2 still ongoing.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 09 December 2018, 13:06:20
HMS Argyll. Once again, tis a pity we will not see ships of its like any more, it's all stealth cupolas and pyramid heads with a spinning knob on top - and I don't mean the captain...

(https://i.postimg.cc/YCLj0R2y/HMS-Argyll-MOD-type-23-frigate.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 09 December 2018, 13:08:52
Greebles are painting and preservation nightmares in real life.  At least the crews will appreciate the newer ships...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 09 December 2018, 13:29:46
And the minis painters, too...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 09 December 2018, 13:52:54
HMS Argyll. Once again, tis a pity we will not see ships of its like any more, it's all stealth cupolas and pyramid heads with a spinning knob on top - and I don't mean the captain...

That's not necessary true.  There still some warships that aren't super stealthy / streamlined.

Japan's lighter destroyers (best way i can describe a navy that calls almost EVERYTHING, even it's carriers due reasons a destroyer) are more boxy and have less stealthy features.  Such as the Murasame class destroyers for example.

(http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Japan-Maritime-Self-Defense-Force/Destroyer/Murasame-class_DAT/DD-106_DAT/DD-106-Samidare-017.jpg)

Some of their newer ones more stealthy but not by alot though. Akizuki class Destroyer, JS Akizuki.
(http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Japan-Maritime-Self-Defense-Force/Destroyer/Akizuki-class_DAT/DD-115_DAT/DD-115-Akizuki-014.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 10 December 2018, 02:25:42
Ugh, Japanese destroyers... now they are following the Burke look, but the generation before that must be the ugliest ships alive. Boxy American deckhouses on European open decks.

The Hatsuyuki-class is the nicest of the lot.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Kj6JvrJ3/DD-126-Hamayuki-003.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 11 December 2018, 15:07:12
Looks like they may have found the original US Sailing frigate, Bonhomme Richard. Fox reported it was found off the coast of England. (https://www.foxnews.com/science/remains-of-us-revolutionary-war-frigate-discovered-off-uk-coast)

(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2018/12/1862/1048/BonhommeRichardGetty1780.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 11 December 2018, 15:30:10
more reliable sources confirm discovery of a wreck, but warn the wreck is currently unidentified, but merely beleived to be the Bonhomme Richard.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-46474363/remains-of-uss-bonhomme-richard-found-off-yorkshire-coast
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6341261/Historians-claim-discovered-wreck-Bonhomme-Richard-sunk-Yorkshire-coast.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wreckage-americas-first-ever-naval-13520077

from the dailymail site:
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2018/11/01/12/5653288-6341261-How_the_USS_Bonhomme_Richard_arrived_at_the_Yorkshire_coastline_-a-2_1541076338007.jpg)

and people are already talking tourism potential.
https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/business/bonhomme-richard-could-bring-huge-tourism-boost-to-yorkshire-coast-1-9484782
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 12 December 2018, 08:05:18
Some of their newer ones more stealthy but not by alot though. Akizuki class Destroyer, JS Akizuki.
(http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Japan-Maritime-Self-Defense-Force/Destroyer/Akizuki-class_DAT/DD-115_DAT/DD-115-Akizuki-014.jpg)

Her RCS is roughly 40% of the Murasame's. RCS suppression isn't a new concept, but due to the lifespan of ships developments in technologies tend to skip classes that were designed earlier, particularly if those developments change the overall shape. Even though Murasame was built around the same time as RCS became the flavour of the month, her design phase was already complete. New equipment isn t uncommon, but changes to the overall shape are vanishingly rare.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 12 December 2018, 08:56:08
Is reduced RCS a matter of putting some effort into cleaner lines and such, or are other technologies involved like radar absorbent materials and stuff?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Cannonshop on 12 December 2018, 10:37:02
Is reduced RCS a matter of putting some effort into cleaner lines and such, or are other technologies involved like radar absorbent materials and stuff?

YES. (yes to both)  Reducing RCS requires both materials technology and 'cleaner' lines.  they go together-you can't get teh cleaner lines without the materials tech, and the materials tech won't give effective results without changing the lines.

Cleaner lines will give a marginal improvement, and a lot of the advanced absorbent materials really don't work without cleaner lines because of structural concerns, but it's like with the old vulcan bombers-they had a 'smaller' RCS than equivalent sized aircraft of the same generation, however they weren't genuinely stealth aircraft any more than the YB-49 was.  to get stealthy, targeting-systems-effecting RCS reduction, you NEED to have both the cleaner lnes, AND the advanced materials.

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 December 2018, 19:34:59
Biggest thing for getting rid of RCS on a ship is eliminating every curved surface you can.  Round objects have a point on them, at any angle, where they're perfectly reflecting right back at the emitter; if you look real close at a Burke for example you'll see that even things like railings are trapezoidal in shape.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/US_Navy_070820-N-9758L-180_Sailors_on_board_Arleigh_Burke-class_guided-missile_destroyer_USS_O%27Kane_%28DDG_70%29_man_the_rails_as_she_makes_her_way_pier_side_to_Naval_Station_Pearl_Harbor.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/US_Navy_070820-N-9758L-180_Sailors_on_board_Arleigh_Burke-class_guided-missile_destroyer_USS_O%27Kane_%28DDG_70%29_man_the_rails_as_she_makes_her_way_pier_side_to_Naval_Station_Pearl_Harbor.jpg)
(It's a really big image)

The other thing is getting rid of every 90 degree angle you can.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector)  So you get slight tapers on things, mostly, and things angled just a little off axis. 

Granted you can't do that with EVERYTHING on a ship, but you can tone the returns down a lot.  Maybe you can't convince an incoming ASM you don't exist, but you can make it get a lot closer before it finally sees you and launches - maybe even within your own air defense envelope, and bag the shooter before they can fire.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 13 December 2018, 08:48:39
Biggest thing for getting rid of RCS on a ship is eliminating every curved surface you can.  Round objects have a point on them, at any angle, where they're perfectly reflecting right back at the emitter; if you look real close at a Burke for example you'll see that even things like railings are trapezoidal in shape.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/US_Navy_070820-N-9758L-180_Sailors_on_board_Arleigh_Burke-class_guided-missile_destroyer_USS_O%27Kane_%28DDG_70%29_man_the_rails_as_she_makes_her_way_pier_side_to_Naval_Station_Pearl_Harbor.jpg)
(It's a really big image)

The other thing is getting rid of every 90 degree angle you can.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector)  So you get slight tapers on things, mostly, and things angled just a little off axis. 

Granted you can't do that with EVERYTHING on a ship, but you can tone the returns down a lot.  Maybe you can't convince an incoming ASM you don't exist, but you can make it get a lot closer before it finally sees you and launches - maybe even within your own air defense envelope, and bag the shooter before they can fire.
You can do in the future, just do img button and where it says [ img ] (i'm spacing it so it' doesn't mess up. you can do [ img width=499] (hyperlink) [ /img ] It will reduce the picture size no matter how big.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 13 December 2018, 09:09:21
HMS Dreadnought, launched in 1906. The ship that changed modern warfare for Battleship era.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/HMS_Dreadnought_1906_H61017.jpg)

The Dreadnought, perhaps needs no introductions.  She was ship that put capital "B" in name Battleship.  Her revolutionary design, changed many things, all ships built prior to her became pre-Dreadnoughts.   

The ship itself perhaps less active, perhaps because her being the prototype of new generation of warships, the Dreadnought didn't do whole lot in her career.  However, from 1906 to 1911, she was most powerful warship afloat.  She was mainly used a flagship for entire fleet, to respective squadrons of follow-on designs.

During World War I, she had one significant action during the war.  She is only Battleship to ever sink submarine, purposely.  You would think "How did they do that?"  You do it the old fashion way, you ram it!  After one her squadron mates were fired on (HMS Neptune), she purposely went after the submarine U-29 had broken the surface. She managed cut the submarine in two, while nearly colliding with another British ship in the process.   
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 13 December 2018, 09:49:48
Her revolutionary design, changed many things, all ships built prior to her became pre-Dreadnoughts.   
Been looking up a bit when the term appeared. It seems to first have been used in 1909 in British debates on the Navy, with First Lord of the Admiralty McKenna being about the only one who used it at the time.

The term Dreadnought itself was first used as a collective term - for HMS Dreadnought, the three Bellerophones and the three St.Vincents - in 1908, though occasionally - in particular by McKenna - also including the Invincible battlecruisers termend '"Dreadnought" type cruisers'.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 13 December 2018, 10:38:05
You can do in the future, just do img button and where it says [ img ] (i'm spacing it so it' doesn't mess up. you can do [ img width=499] (hyperlink) [ /img ] It will reduce the picture size no matter how big.

That reduces the picture's on-screen dimensions(and we do encourage that because pictures that don't fit in a screen are always a pain), but does nothing to reduce the amount of data these large images are shoving through the forum's bandwidth. It's also not doing any favors to any forum members who may not have an infinite data plan on whatever device they use to come here. He is right to link the way he did, please do the same. C:-)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 13 December 2018, 11:18:50
An interesting thing about Dreadnought... she was one of three ships that all were developed at roughly the same time by different countries to switch to an all-big gun setup, with none of them aware of the plans of the other two (Japan's Settsu ended up being given mid-size guns during construction due to a lack of heavy gun availability, and the American South Carolina took a long time to finish up despite starting before Dreadnought).

Where Dreadnought stands head and shoulders above those contemporaries is the turbine engines. Combining that engine power (a huge improvement over standard triple-expansion systems) with that increase in main battery power was the real secret to Dreadnought, not just the gun switch alone. Truly a revolutionary ship from the keel up in almost every respect.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ruger on 13 December 2018, 13:28:41
An interesting thing about Dreadnought... she was one of three ships that all were developed at roughly the same time by different countries to switch to an all-big gun setup, with none of them aware of the plans of the other two (Japan's Settsu ended up being given mid-size guns during construction due to a lack of heavy gun availability, and the American South Carolina took a long time to finish up despite starting before Dreadnought).

I believe you mean Satsuma for the Japanese warship...

Ruger
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 13 December 2018, 13:46:15
I believe you mean Satsuma for the Japanese warship...

Ruger

Doh! You're correct, had my names backwards.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 15 December 2018, 02:39:16
Is reduced RCS a matter of putting some effort into cleaner lines and such, or are other technologies involved like radar absorbent materials and stuff?

There are four fundamental factors influencing target observability, size, shape, construction materials and aspect. From the emitter aspect observability is influenced by wavelength, pulse repetition, aerial rotation period and pulses per paint most notably.

Observability is something that needs to be introduced in the design phase by reducing or eliminating certain angles and radar traps, reducing overall size as much as possible and using a descerning eye with materials. Initial in service trials should include a full spectrum survey to determine the best angle to show a seeker, to present the smallest target.

It is a massive field with applications in ship building, avaition, space and beaconing of all types. I find it oddly fascinating, not just the applications, but defeating it as well. :-)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 15 December 2018, 07:55:59
(https://i.imgur.com/gh0SPSO.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Euphonium on 15 December 2018, 08:42:20
That's beautiful, marauder648!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Euphonium on 15 December 2018, 08:47:50
Here's an interesting story I stumbled across on Facebook:

Quote
The passenger steamer SS Warrimoo was quietly knifing its way through the waters of the mid-Pacific on its way from Vancouver to Australia. The navigator had just finished working out a star fix and brought Captain John DS. Phillips, the result. The Warrimoo's position was LAT 0º 31' N and LONG 179 30' W. The date was 31 December 1899. "Know what this means?" First Mate Payton broke in, "We're only a few miles from the intersection of the Equator and the International Date Line". Captain Phillips was prankish enough to take full advantage of the opportunity for achieving the navigational freak of a lifetime.

He called his navigators to the bridge to check & double check the ship's position. He changed course slightly so as to bear directly on his mark. Then he adjusted the engine speed.

The calm weather & clear night worked in his favor. At mid-night the SS Warrimoo lay on the Equator at exactly the point where it crossed the International Date Line! The consequences of this bizarre position were many:
The forward part (bow) of the ship was in the Southern Hemisphere & in the middle of summer.
The rear (stern) was in the Northern Hemisphere & in the middle of winter.
The date in the aft part of the ship was 31 December 1899.
In the bow (forward) part it was 1 January 1900.

This ship was therefore not only in:
Two different days,
Two different months,
Two different years,
Two different seasons
But in two different centuries - all at the same time!

Original article at https://www.facebook.com/pacificyachtingmagazine/posts/2245473715477547 (https://www.facebook.com/pacificyachtingmagazine/posts/2245473715477547)
Copy/pasted because not everyone has Facebook
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 15 December 2018, 10:18:16
Nice find, Euphonium!  That's the kind of thing that would normally get a Navy crew disciplined, awesome or not.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 15 December 2018, 11:05:58
Well, SS is a commercial merchant marine ship from the US- like HMS stood for a Brit commercial ship like HMS Titantic.  USN ships are the USS Whatever.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 15 December 2018, 11:06:50
That would be why they "got away" with it... :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 15 December 2018, 11:19:42
Heck, the company may have appreciated the PR from logging that sort of thing.  Honestly in our age of media/PR I wonder why someone did not try to duplicate the feat which would add being in 2 different millenniums!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 15 December 2018, 11:21:36
Time is money... even a small detour can get you in trouble with the bean counters.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ghost0402 on 15 December 2018, 11:23:34
Well, SS is a commercial merchant marine ship from the US- like HMS stood for a Brit commercial ship like HMS Titantic.  USN ships are the USS Whatever.
RMS for Titanic, Royal Mail Ship/Steamer.  SS was a standard designation for steam ship back in the day.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 15 December 2018, 12:06:22
Lol, yeah I have the Royal Navy designation . . . its what I get for having the kid under foot.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 18 December 2018, 08:42:36
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-18/japan-to-launch-first-aircraft-carriers-since-wwii/10632254 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-18/japan-to-launch-first-aircraft-carriers-since-wwii/10632254)

I wonder if they will be classified by the Japanese as an Aircraft Carrier or will they class it as a VTOL Destroyer?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 18 December 2018, 08:47:03
Multifunctional through-deck destroyer ;D

Quote
Japanese officials brushed off the criticism, saying the Izumo will be a multifunctional warship used as an aircraft carrier only when necessary for national defence.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 18 December 2018, 08:47:46
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-18/japan-to-launch-first-aircraft-carriers-since-wwii/10632254 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-18/japan-to-launch-first-aircraft-carriers-since-wwii/10632254)

I wonder if they will be classified by the Japanese as an Aircraft Carrier or will they class it as a VTOL Destroyer?


Multifunctional through-deck destroyer ;D



Hai! a modified Nimitz-class super-carrier[/strike] aircraft carrying destroyer??
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 18 December 2018, 09:27:32
Well to be fair... look at the USS America, a landing "helicopter" "amphibious" assault ship that operates more aircraft than helicopters and is neither itself amphibious nor operates amphibious landing craft

(http://www.military-today.com/navy/america_class.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 18 December 2018, 12:06:52
Guys, warship pictures are fine, discussion is fine, but we're edging VERY close to modern politics with a few of these links.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 18 December 2018, 16:22:30
Why not Japan have a light carrier. The carrier is more than capable of flying off F-35s, its the size of a Wasp. Not in Tonnage at least.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 18 December 2018, 16:29:45
Japan's and the World's first purpose built aircraft carrier, the Hōshō.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_H%C5%8Dsh%C5%8D_Tokyo_Bay.jpg)

The Hōshō was commissioned in 1922, originally designated as a  Seaplane Tender.However the design was re-worked to become what we know now as a flush-deck Aircraft Carrier.  She was completely unarmored, would carrying capacity of only 15 aircraft.

She first saw action in 1937, where she was used to engage the National Chinese aircraft in the Sino-JapaneseWar, however the ship wasn't small air compliment would not prove to be as good in combat. The ship would be return home to to act as a training carrier.

She would only other action she took was a secondary role in the Battle of Midway during World War II. She gave the main fleet some air protection, scouting, and anti-submarine coverage.

By the end of the war, it desperate need for carriers, she would be expanded with side flight deck and lengthen hull.  This proved to be too late for the war efforts.  She survived the war and was used to return troops home in 1946 before being scrapped.

Sort of ironic, now that the Izuma being refitted as a VTOL carrier. She going nearly have same air compliment as this old girl.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Elmoth on 18 December 2018, 17:12:04
It is carrying Karnovs, right?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 18 December 2018, 18:02:33
Why not Japan have a light carrier. The carrier is more than capable of flying off F-35s, its the size of a Wasp. Not in Tonnage at least.
Entirely rule-4 reasons, it's extremely political with the Japanese.  Suffice it to say they're taking deep refuge in the way everyone's renaming their ships these days and breaking away from the typical descriptions codified through WWII.  "That's not a frigate, it's a littoral combat ship!"  And so on.  Good lord, most "destroyers" these days have the firepower of WWII battleships and would be major surface combatants anyway, but nobody calls them that.

Anyone know if the Japanese are optioning straight F-35Bs or are they going to go for licensed production of a J type with local avionics and whatnot, like the F-15J and F-2?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 18 December 2018, 18:16:31
What I read said straight -35Bs and also buying unspecified F-35 subclass for their land-based forces.  Not really sure the F-35 is a good replacement for the F-15Js they have anyway but it does keep their logistics simpler as long as their -35Js are not too different than the -35B.  I get that the Eagle is now a old frame and they need replacements which would incorporate the technology advancements in avionics and materials . . . but all the analysis I have read says the -35 is a generalist that is at best OK in most the roles its planned for, and tries to do it on the cheap (ish, I mean its a current gen fighter).  If they modify the -35B into their own VSTOL version, would it officially be the -35BJ?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 18 December 2018, 19:20:18
From my understanding of the F-35 program (and I am 6 years out of touch), it is a worldwide partnership program. So it generally plans to avoid having J-models, I-models, S-models etc. All the program partners sign on for an A, B or C model with different Block releases but the idea is that the program partners will all share a pool of spare engines, avionics and parts, so interchangeability of these parts is paramount over customised local fitouts.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 18 December 2018, 20:40:49
From what I remember the Hosho class has space for 28 Helos. I'm sure the Air wing for a "sea control" ship will be something like 18 or 20 F35s and 6 Seahawks just like the Wasp airwing. That's a pretty strong force if the F35s all work.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 18 December 2018, 21:02:39
From my understanding of the F-35 program (and I am 6 years out of touch), it is a worldwide partnership program. So it generally plans to avoid having J-models, I-models, S-models etc. All the program partners sign on for an A, B or C model with different Block releases but the idea is that the program partners will all share a pool of spare engines, avionics and parts, so interchangeability of these parts is paramount over customised local fitouts.

Yeah, its sort of NATO-fied . . . but the F-15J was IIRC not anything the US contractor built for them, Japan took delivery of the airframes and then replaced some of the electronics to their specs which made it easier for them to keep them functional since they were local sourced.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 19 December 2018, 06:37:51
Well there won't be any such modifications in the 35s since Lockmart will control the avionics code except in the case of the Israeli 35i which is a special case, and even then the Israelis are installing an overlay on top of the underlying OS.

The Japanese are going to replace the older 100 of their 200-odd F-15Js with F-35As. And by old we mean really old; their things are 70s relics with no Link 16 and still firing the Sparrow rather than the AMRAAM. The F-35A is therefore a very big time upgrade over that.

Meanwhile the remaining F-15Js will continue in service, being upgraded with more modern accoutrements like datalinks, advanced PESA radars, helmet cued missiles, countermeasures, etc

The current scheduled Japan F-35 buys are for around 40 of the 35A variant, but this will be extended to about 100 of the 35A and 40 of the 35Bs for operation from the Izumos.

Without more extensive modifications than just bolting on a ramp however, the Izumos, like the older US LHDs, aren't likely to carry more than 6 to 8 F-35s. If we do see them modded, it will probably involve a deck extension

There's a manga and upcoming movie about just such a ship, titled Aircraft Carrier Ibuki. It's extremely Rule 4 :D it models what an imagined Izumo extended deck could look like:

(https://i62.servimg.com/u/f62/15/82/58/15/a0110.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 19 December 2018, 07:24:32
At the end of the day, the Japanese are no worse than us here in Australia.

(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/ships/20150827RAN8100087_101-2.JPG)

We had our helicopter destroyers built with the ski-jump because it was going to cost to much to have Navantia build the ships without them  ???
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 19 December 2018, 09:05:21
As I understand it the ramp is part of the hull structure, so removing it required a major redesign. I guess the RAN might have gotten a bit paranoid about that after the trouble with the Collins boats...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 19 December 2018, 09:54:25
At the end of the day, the Japanese are no worse than us here in Australia.

(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/ships/20150827RAN8100087_101-2.JPG)

We had our helicopter destroyers built with the ski-jump because it was going to cost to much to have Navantia build the ships without them  ???

She's an amphibious assault ship, not a destroyer. :-)

As I understand it the ramp is part of the hull structure, so removing it required a major redesign. I guess the RAN might have gotten a bit paranoid about that after the trouble with the Collins boats...

Correct! There's a lot of weight in that ramp, not to mention the shape of the bow. Removing the ramp would have been very costly, and possibly compromised the ships sea keeping abilities. When I was on the deck, I looked around and wished for a go cart, a good run up, and a parachute. :-)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 19 December 2018, 09:57:28
Bit more obvious with a front view

(http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/5/0/6/2008605.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 19 December 2018, 09:58:46
Would the Canberra class be capable of operating the F-35B if they got a detachment from, say, the UK or USMC? There's the business of needing the special deck coating but apart from that the baseline model from Navantia that they were taken from seems to be planned to do that for Spain...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 19 December 2018, 10:05:09
Would the Canberra class be capable of operating the F-35B if they got a detachment from, say, the UK or USMC? There's the business of needing the special deck coating but apart from that the baseline model from Navantia that they were taken from seems to be planned to do that for Spain...

Nope, they don't have any arrestor fittings or FW safety/survival gear. It is a relatively simple refit, we didn't meddle with the structure of the ship, just left a few bits out. It's more work and cost than a single deployment is worth though, so not likely to ever happen.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Dragon Cat on 19 December 2018, 10:15:33
Nope, they don't have any arrestor fittings or FW safety/survival gear. It is a relatively simple refit, we didn't meddle with the structure of the ship, just left a few bits out. It's more work and cost than a single deployment is worth though, so not likely to ever happen.

If it's the F35 you don't need the arrestor cables with a VTOL landing even the Royal Navy's rolling landing doesn't need them the roll is very short and relatively speaking slow

EDIT my doesn't need isn't the same as a pilot would want I understand that any safety feature is a welcome one
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Cannonshop on 19 December 2018, 10:31:28
If it's the F35 you don't need the arrestor cables with a VTOL landing even the Royal Navy's rolling landing doesn't need them the roll is very short and relatively speaking slow

EDIT my doesn't need isn't the same as a pilot would want I understand that any safety feature is a welcome one

but how would you keep from burning holes in the deck?  That's kind of the real problem here-that jet exhaust is quite warm, blowtorching holes in your flight-deck probably wouldn't be a good or popular move with your sailors.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 19 December 2018, 10:52:06
F-35 proof deck coating can be applied relatively easily. IIRC MV-22s already necessitate a significant amount of deck protection and Osprey-capable flattops just need a topup to operate F-35s.

The primary bottleneck would be pilot and ships' crew training in carrier ops.

After that there's issues of efficiency - okay, so you CAN operate F-35s, but is it worth the effort...?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: VhenRa on 19 December 2018, 11:44:07
IIRC they did however delete the extra fuel storage that would be needed to operate F-35s for any significant amount of time.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 19 December 2018, 14:50:08
She's an amphibious assault ship, not a destroyer. :-)

More useful than the frigate-protection frigates  ::) The Canberra is highly useful, but looks like a misloaded container ship :(
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sharpnel on 19 December 2018, 15:13:11
The Canberra is highly useful, but looks like a misloaded container ship :(
Funny because it's true.   ;D  ;D  ;D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 19 December 2018, 15:28:02
If I wanted containers on deck ...

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/thekristoffersuniverseinwar/images/c/c7/Soviet_cruiser_Slava.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120628222040)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 19 December 2018, 15:48:11
Hard to make out with the picture detail but . . . Soviet guided/cruise missile cruiser?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 19 December 2018, 15:51:22
None other than the very best (visually) of them all

(http://i.imgur.com/Y3RJfJS.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 19 December 2018, 17:51:22
The Slava class ship is such a neat ship with the firepower turned up to 11 on that ship.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 19 December 2018, 17:57:53
Sure is a nice target you got there . . . be a shame if something happened to it . . .

(http://www.seaforces.org/usnships/ssn/Seawolf-class_DAT/img5.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Deadborder on 19 December 2018, 18:10:17
None other than the very best (visually) of them all

(http://i.imgur.com/Y3RJfJS.jpg)

The Slava Class is at that stage where it becomes awesome ridiculous.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 19 December 2018, 21:46:14
16 one-shot missiles. One ripple salvo.

Maaaaaybe one sunk IS CV.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 20 December 2018, 00:27:06
Its too bad that the Canberra couldn't be supplied newly made Harrier aircraft.  Its was crime they were discontinued. They would work on Canberra fine, provide support for Amphib assaults and give the fleet a degree of protection from enemy aircraft, but alot.

I wish they were able to make more if it were practical.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 20 December 2018, 05:13:39
Why Harrier when you can F35B?

16 one-shot missiles. One ripple salvo.

Maaaaaybe one sunk IS CV.
They were pretty scary in 1985. Consider the antimissile defences available then.

And coming in along with a swarm of Backfires and Badgers launching Kitchens and Kelts.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 20 December 2018, 07:33:11
Why Harrier when you can F35B?
They were pretty scary in 1985. Consider the antimissile defences available then.

And coming in along with a swarm of Backfires and Badgers launching Kitchens and Kelts.
Cost less for one thing. Less extensive modifications u need to the ship's flightdeck is another.

Example the old USS Tripoli LPH-10. She was first of her class use Harriers in 1974.

EDIT: Sorry for the typos, using phone at the time.

 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/USS_Tripoli_LPH10_a.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 20 December 2018, 07:33:53
Why Harrier when you can F35B?
They were pretty scary in 1985. Consider the antimissile defences available then.

And coming in along with a swarm of Backfires and Badgers launching Kitchens and Kelts.

Pretty sure you mean Backfires and Blinders, Badger couldn't carry As 4 Kitchen or AS 6 Kingfish.

Its too bad that the Canberra couldn't be supplied newly made Harrier aircraft.  Its was crime they were discontinued. They would work on Canberra fine, provide support for Amphib assaults and give the fleet a degree of protection from enemy aircraft, but alot.

I wish they were able to make more if it were practical.

Carrying fighters wasn't what the Canberra class were bought for. They were bought as an LHD, amphibious assault in war time, recovery crews in HADR tasking. We certainly could fit them with FW facilities, but we don't want to.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 20 December 2018, 08:33:17
Pretty sure you mean Backfires and Blinders, Badger couldn't carry As 4 Kitchen or AS 6 Kingfish.
I think the upgraded ones could. And there's AS-5 Kelts. Doesn't matter if they're high-supersonic or not, just sling a whole crowd of whatever AShMs, and saturate that mid-80s missile defence.

Quote
We certainly could fit them with FW facilities, but we don't want to.
What would that entail?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Charlie 6 on 20 December 2018, 09:49:36

What would that entail?
Back in '98 - '99 when I was either working up to deploy or already deployed to the Med, a team from NAVAIR came out to the NASSAU (LHA 4) to check the aviation spaces for MV-22 compatibility; as I recall, "high-hat" space (aka a tall hanger) was the first issue.  Fuel capacity was another and test aboard WASP high lighted the flight deck coating problem.  Throw in a different set aviation calibration requirements and potential magazine storage issues (i.e., small arms for side mounted machine guns versus 500 to 2000lb bombs) … sure can get pricey. 
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 20 December 2018, 10:36:52
Pretty sure you mean Backfires and Blinders, Badger couldn't carry As 4 Kitchen or AS 6 Kingfish.

There was an upgrade package tested for AS-4 at least for Badger that would have allowed it to carry one semi-recessed similar to the Tu-22M, but it wasn't followed through on due to the Tu-22M becoming fairly prolific around the time Badger was put out to pasture. In the event of wartime, it didn't sound like an overly difficult upgrade to the aircraft, but definitely wasn't worth it at a time when defense spending was tight for the Soviets as it was.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 20 December 2018, 10:50:23
Back in '98 - '99 when I was either working up to deploy or already deployed to the Med, a team from NAVAIR came out to the NASSAU (LHA 4) to check the aviation spaces for MV-22 compatibility; as I recall, "high-hat" space (aka a tall hanger) was the first issue.  Fuel capacity was another and test aboard WASP high lighted the flight deck coating problem.  Throw in a different set aviation calibration requirements and potential magazine storage issues (i.e., small arms for side mounted machine guns versus 500 to 2000lb bombs) … sure can get pricey.

IIRC, the hangar is tall enough, and most of the magazine space requirements can be satisfied by insertion of blast doors and reassigning space.

There are two major issues with the ship itself, leaving the pilot and deck crew training aside. One issue is the deck, this is not complicated to remedy, but is costly to acquire, and also costly to maintain due to the ablative nature of the coating. The fittings for emergency recovery and arrest are mandatory, I'm afraid, you need those because you want to be able to recover damaged fighters.

The second issue is bunk space allocation. Every naval ship has a watch and station bill, or scheme of complement, and these positions are ferociously argued over with organisations virtually coming to blows regarding the number of bunks and positions on board. Since the majority of the bunks on the Canberra class are army, guess how likely it is that Navy would be able to resume any of them? That means we'd need to wear it out of hide, and we have an unfortunate nature of minimising bunks on Navy ships. So not only would we have a massive fight on our hands should we attempt to take any Army bunks, the knives would come out should we seek to reallocate whatever bunks we have in Navy hands. Not a fun thing, and this isn't even going into some of the incredibly complex and expensive whole of Navy issues like training requirements, Navy mission, Navy personnel requirements, and the pesky Defence Act that states unequivocally that FW are the domain of Air Force!

And let me tell you, Air Force members do not like staying anywhere other than resorts!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Charlie 6 on 20 December 2018, 12:25:53
IIRC, the hangar is tall enough, and most of the magazine space requirements can be satisfied by insertion of blast doors and reassigning space.

There are two major issues with the ship itself, leaving the pilot and deck crew training aside. One issue is the deck, this is not complicated to remedy, but is costly to acquire, and also costly to maintain due to the ablative nature of the coating. The fittings for emergency recovery and arrest are mandatory, I'm afraid, you need those because you want to be able to recover damaged fighters.

The second issue is bunk space allocation. Every naval ship has a watch and station bill, or scheme of complement, and these positions are ferociously argued over with organisations virtually coming to blows regarding the number of bunks and positions on board. Since the majority of the bunks on the Canberra class are army, guess how likely it is that Navy would be able to resume any of them? That means we'd need to wear it out of hide, and we have an unfortunate nature of minimising bunks on Navy ships. So not only would we have a massive fight on our hands should we attempt to take any Army bunks, the knives would come out should we seek to reallocate whatever bunks we have in Navy hands. Not a fun thing, and this isn't even going into some of the incredibly complex and expensive whole of Navy issues like training requirements, Navy mission, Navy personnel requirements, and the pesky Defence Act that states unequivocally that FW are the domain of Air Force!

And let me tell you, Air Force members do not like staying anywhere other than resorts!
My experience is on US amphibs, twenty-two months of it and I've worked with a number of Australian liaison officers to the USMC.  I know there has been a bit of "copying" and learning in both directions over the past decade.

STOVL aircraft and helicopters don't need arresting gear if you are talking trap wires and nets.  If there were, I never saw the equipment nor do I remember doing any drills on either NASSAU or WASP.  I've asked friend, a former Harrier squadron CO, if I'm misremembering.  But a quick literature review online garnered me the sentiment that it is easier to "stop and land" via STOVL than to "land and stop" a conventional aircraft.

Here's a video:  https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/harrier-has-stuck-nose-gear-lands-jet-on-a-stool-pilo-1596517824

Basically, the solution for the nose gear not working is a stool.  UPDATE:  The reply I got was basically the stool, ditch or divert.

So a common misperception about US amphibs is that belong to the USMC.  While it is true Marines deploy most often aboard them the spaces are designated for either Embarked Troops (green spaces) or Ship's Company (blue spaces) rather than a specific Service.  If the "flavor" of the embarked force changes they have to figure out space use within the constraints of remaining in the Embarked Troops areas.  For example, below are pics of LHD-3 and LHD-5.  KEARSARGE embarked CH-53s and CH-46s while BATAAN was carrying an AV-8B squadron and some CH-53s.  Cargo that doesn't fit in those designated spaces ends up being Cargo Left on Pier (CLOP) and personnel end up being People Left on Pier (PLOP).  Those who end up surprised by this status are PO-PLOP...or Pissed Off People Left on Pier.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 20 December 2018, 18:08:51
Of course, when the embarked personnel are the Fleet Commander and his staff, reorganization of spaces starts with the XO's stateroom and rolls down from there... :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 20 December 2018, 18:19:53
My thought about posting some F-35Bs aboard a Canberra class ship was not that I thought the RAAF or RAN would provide the planes and crews etc but that it might be an expedient move by either the RN/RAF or USMC if they needed another flat top to deploy from


Anyway, enough chat, here is a photo of HMS Queen Elizabeth with HMS Sutherland and HMS Iron Duke as escorts


By Fleet Air Arm aircrew - UK Ministry of Defence photo 45162784, OGL, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61611877
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Charlie 6 on 20 December 2018, 20:48:11
Of course, when the embarked personnel are the Fleet Commander and his staff, reorganization of spaces starts with the XO's stateroom and rolls down from there... :)
Shhh, don't scare them.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 20 December 2018, 20:52:44
Heh... having been on said Fleet Commander's staff, I was stuffed into a six-man bunkroom.  The boss was well taken care of, though...  ^-^
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Charlie 6 on 20 December 2018, 20:55:52
Heh... having been on said Fleet Commander's staff, I was stuffed into a six-man bunkroom.  The boss was well taken care of, though...  ^-^
As all Staff Officers should be.  Somehow, my last two stints embarked I ended up in a stateroom by myself.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 20 December 2018, 20:58:03
Lucky you!  My previous staff tour, I only had one room mate, but our stateroom was right underneath one of the jet blast deflectors...  xp
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Charlie 6 on 20 December 2018, 21:10:30
Lucky you!  My previous staff tour, I only had one room mate, but our stateroom was right underneath one of the jet blast deflectors...  xp
My last MEU deployment, back in '00, I was just aft of the gym and far enough forward to wonder aloud if we were still at flight quarters just about the time the Harriers went screaming overhead.  My first big deck float, I spent six months directly below the forward portion of spot six...so I got to listen to the drag and drop of chains to gripe the aircraft down. Every night.  At 2200.  While underway.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 20 December 2018, 21:15:29
Chains are a constant on anything with aircraft.  I resorted to earplugs and headphones to get any sleep at all.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 21 December 2018, 06:16:37
My experience is on US amphibs, twenty-two months of it and I've worked with a number of Australian liaison officers to the USMC.  I know there has been a bit of "copying" and learning in both directions over the past decade.

STOVL aircraft and helicopters don't need arresting gear if you are talking trap wires and nets.  If there were, I never saw the equipment nor do I remember doing any drills on either NASSAU or WASP.  I've asked friend, a former Harrier squadron CO, if I'm misremembering.  But a quick literature review online garnered me the sentiment that it is easier to "stop and land" via STOVL than to "land and stop" a conventional aircraft.

Here's a video:  https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/harrier-has-stuck-nose-gear-lands-jet-on-a-stool-pilo-1596517824

Basically, the solution for the nose gear not working is a stool.  UPDATE:  The reply I got was basically the stool, ditch or divert.

So a common misperception about US amphibs is that belong to the USMC.  While it is true Marines deploy most often aboard them the spaces are designated for either Embarked Troops (green spaces) or Ship's Company (blue spaces) rather than a specific Service.  If the "flavor" of the embarked force changes they have to figure out space use within the constraints of remaining in the Embarked Troops areas.  For example, below are pics of LHD-3 and LHD-5.  KEARSARGE embarked CH-53s and CH-46s while BATAAN was carrying an AV-8B squadron and some CH-53s.  Cargo that doesn't fit in those designated spaces ends up being Cargo Left on Pier (CLOP) and personnel end up being People Left on Pier (PLOP).  Those who end up surprised by this status are PO-PLOP...or Pissed Off People Left on Pier.

Ahh fair enough, I was told that emergency arrestors were required for damaged aircraft that didn't have fine enough controls to come into a hover over the deck. Happy to be wrong, but the project certainly thought this was the case.

While I understand what you are saying with regards to the Marines, please be aware that this is not the case in the RAN. While the Navy owns the ships, government doesn't view them as a single service asset, and that's the only difference that counts. Should the ARA complain to government about some of their members being left on the wharf so that Navy members could be on board, government would frown upon this heavily. Not that Army want to be there either, but the bureaucratic turf war has already turned nasty, with a Colonel inviting CN to inspect Canberra, CN had a go at the Colonel (rightly), but CA sent a formal complaint to CN regarding this.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 21 December 2018, 10:07:10
What is typical Royal Navy taskforce now, with Queen Elizabeth now cruising around.  I know she not formally doing patrols, she needs her air compliment but i was curious.

Does Australia deploy her LHDs in task force as well, or this just used when needed situation?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 21 December 2018, 10:27:16
What is typical Royal Navy taskforce now
Now - nothing. QE won't be operational for some time yet

Future - MOD has guided that an indicative QE carrier group in the future would have 1 QE-class carrier, 1 Type 45 AAW destroyer, 1-2 Type 23/26 ASW frigates, 1 Type 31e GP frigate, and probably 1 Tide-class fleet tanker

(http://i.postimg.cc/ZnGbyWMh/tide40359.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Dragon Cat on 21 December 2018, 12:44:15
I'd probably add another fleet auxiliary to that for non wartime patrols would add to transport and give further options with humaitarian relief
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 21 December 2018, 12:53:11
Speaking of auxiliaries.  One of the few actually commissioned ones, USS Lewis B. Puller ESB-3, the Expeditionary Sea Base.  With compliment of helios out for show.

(http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2017/january/USNS_Lewis_B_Puller_T-ESB_3.jpg)

I'm curious way she only commissioned if she forward deploy. Makes me wonder if what will happen when she to going back? Will she become a USNS again and some other ship becomes commissioned?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 21 December 2018, 13:50:13
I do like the look of the Tide class. But this ...

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xuh3D895VXg/maxresdefault.jpg)

Does remind me of this ...

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/thunderbirds/images/8/8b/Warship.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140617203152)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 21 December 2018, 14:01:22

Does remind me of this ...

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/thunderbirds/images/8/8b/Warship.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140617203152)
Then so will this, another fleet auxiliary, this one on a part time basis - the Point class ro/ro

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FfpCx2H/MV-Hartland-Point-1-740x381.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: David CGB on 21 December 2018, 18:48:16
Then so will this, another fleet auxiliary, this one on a part time basis - the Point class ro/ro

(https://i.postimg.cc/9FfpCx2H/MV-Hartland-Point-1-740x381.jpg)
nice looking vessel
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 22 December 2018, 04:43:02
Is that a small attempt for a ship to be more aerodynamic and be a little more efficient?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 22 December 2018, 07:42:06
Is that a small attempt for a ship to be more aerodynamic and be a little more efficient?

Probably not, but it would limit the stress on the hull in rough weather. Most ships with the open bow end up scooping up a lot of water when they dig into the wave in front, puts a lot of stress on the frame.

On a warship it's for RCS reduction, can't see a tanker or cargo vessel needing that.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 22 December 2018, 08:37:29
Most ships with the open bow end up scooping up a lot of water when they dig into the wave in front, puts a lot of stress on the frame.
Northern Atlantic Ocean is a mean one especially.

That said, I wonder if there's any plans to refit the deck of Atlantic Conveyor to operate F-35Bs...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sharpnel on 22 December 2018, 08:45:20
Northern Atlantic Ocean is a mean one especially.

That said, I wonder if there's any plans to refit the deck of Atlantic Conveyor to operate F-35Bs...
That may be difficult as the only vessel I know of by that name is at the bottom of the ocean somewhere near the Falklands
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 22 December 2018, 08:46:02
Blue water is ALL mean.  Worst I've personally experienced was the days after we rounded Cape Horn.  Master and Commander gave a good feel for it.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 22 December 2018, 08:57:43
That may be difficult as the only vessel I know of by that name is at the bottom of the ocean somewhere near the Falklands
They made a new one in 1985, apparently.  Atlantic Container Line still operates it as a container/RORO and added five more in the last couple years about twice the displacement. 
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 22 December 2018, 10:21:08
Speaking of rough water and the North Atlantic...one of the Royal Navy's Tide-class tankers not too long ago:

(https://i.imgur.com/wcLJRtX.png)

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 22 December 2018, 10:39:29
I look at photos like that and wonder how Zumwalt is supposed to NOT transform into a submarine with its 'wave-piercing' hull design.  Yeah, I know it's all about displacement and such, but that's still inviting a LOT of water tonnage to hammer down from above.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 22 December 2018, 12:29:30
I look at photos like that and wonder how Zumwalt is supposed to NOT transform into a submarine with its 'wave-piercing' hull design.  Yeah, I know it's all about displacement and such, but that's still inviting a LOT of water tonnage to hammer down from above.
I expect it's designed with that in mind. Keeping the crew under deck all the time doesn't just improve stealth. :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 22 December 2018, 13:26:58
Blue water is ALL mean.  Worst I've personally experienced was the days after we rounded Cape Horn.  Master and Commander gave a good feel for it.

Got to respect the Roaring Forties.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 22 December 2018, 13:39:24
Old school WWII Pt Boat, this is the PT 105 underway during exercise in 1942.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/USS_PT-105.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 23 December 2018, 04:34:57
Blue water is ALL mean.  Worst I've personally experienced was the days after we rounded Cape Horn.  Master and Commander gave a good feel for it.

Yep, the roughest seas I've ever seen have to be in the Great Southern Ocean, it can either be the worst water way in the world or a lovely environment of flat water and magnificent star fields, sometimes within hours of each other. :-P
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: VhenRa on 23 December 2018, 04:45:55
Saw a video of it taken from HMNZS Otago, it was insane the level of waves they were in.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 23 December 2018, 07:22:39
Anzac in the Indian Ocean 2003. I was on Darwin where the photo was taken from.


Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 23 December 2018, 07:55:48
Yep, the roughest seas I've ever seen have to be in the Great Southern Ocean, it can either be the worst water way in the world or a lovely environment of flat water and magnificent star fields, sometimes within hours of each other. :-P
Definitely!  When we actually passed Cape Horn, the weather was beautiful.  24 hours later, 50-knot winds, 30+ foot seas, and snow...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 23 December 2018, 10:47:03
USS Sigourney refueling from USS Franklin Roosevelt in the late 59's:

(https://i.imgur.com/Kg846LI.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/657ahcf.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 23 December 2018, 12:21:54
That's why ships like the destroyers at turn of the 20th Century had turtleback bows.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/HMS_Fame_%281896%29_IWM_Q_021241.jpg)
HMS Fame of D Class (1913).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 23 December 2018, 12:52:27
Everything old is new again... The X-Bow(tm) is an award-winning Norwegian ship design that, well, just take a look for yourself

(https://i.postimg.cc/FFcr5vTJ/newslista.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9MdnbLBz/reflistc.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvK35VCs/newslista-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 24 December 2018, 10:04:24
Amateurs.

(http://www.rollmodels.net/nworkbench/onlinebuild/arizona/arizona_bow.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 24 December 2018, 10:42:01
Everything old is new again... The X-Bow(tm) is an award-winning Norwegian ship design that, well, just take a look for yourself

(https://i.postimg.cc/9MdnbLBz/reflistc.png)


That pic looks like it's just begging to have a wave climb the bow and do bad things to the helicopter deck and pilot house windows.  I'd be willing to bet that the design would minimize that, though.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 24 December 2018, 10:46:29
I saw this link on Quora - I won't post the photos directly as they are huge but if anyone knows how to shrink them and wants to...


http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/25634/awe-inspiring-images-from-underneath-a-well-worn-uss-nimitz-the-navys-oldest-carrier?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 24 December 2018, 11:08:19
Nice... NIMITZ was my ship back in the day.  I still wear her belt buckle with my uniform.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 24 December 2018, 11:13:33
I saw this link on Quora - I won't post the photos directly as they are huge but if anyone knows how to shrink them and wants to...


http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/25634/awe-inspiring-images-from-underneath-a-well-worn-uss-nimitz-the-navys-oldest-carrier?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral
This is how you do it. Just cap off both ends of the line.
 img width=399]image address[/img
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 24 December 2018, 11:31:18
This is how you do it. Just cap off both ends of the line.
 img width=399]image address[/img


Thank you but you sorely over-estimate my abilities
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 24 December 2018, 12:13:23
Wow...  :o

Those are some nice phat donkey pics!

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 24 December 2018, 14:36:31
I saw this link on Quora - I won't post the photos directly as they are huge but if anyone knows how to shrink them and wants to...

Amazing photos! Thanks for sharing.

W.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 24 December 2018, 18:59:39
I have tried to find it, but what was the name of the Brit WWII cruiser that had several feet of water over the turrets.  Happened off Madagascar IIRC.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 24 December 2018, 20:23:25
That pic looks like it's just begging to have a wave climb the bow and do bad things to the helicopter deck and pilot house windows.  I'd be willing to bet that the design would minimize that, though.

That flight deck is more than 30 metres above the sea surface, it's pretty safe.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 24 December 2018, 20:33:29
I dunno. If waves can top the superstructure of a Tico...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 24 December 2018, 20:38:57
Or the flight deck of NIMITZ (which I've seen personally).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 24 December 2018, 20:41:30
That flight deck is more than 30 metres above the sea surface, it's pretty safe.

Wow...that thing is a lot bigger than I thought it was.  But if a carrier can take water over the bow, I would thing pretty much anything can.  But it would have to be in pretty extreme conditions.

Video of USS Kitty Hawk taking water over the bow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK9myqHOMfE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK9myqHOMfE)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 25 December 2018, 01:00:40
From what I remember of the story, they took a rogue wave on the iron coast . . . basically the cruiser became a submarine for a bit.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 25 December 2018, 07:34:48
Wow...that thing is a lot bigger than I thought it was.  But if a carrier can take water over the bow, I would thing pretty much anything can.  But it would have to be in pretty extreme conditions.

Video of USS Kitty Hawk taking water over the bow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK9myqHOMfE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK9myqHOMfE)
As far as I can see it's not actually taking water over the bow, it's just (a lot of) spray. I'm guessing the x-bow design won't create won't create much spray, and it probably channels the water to the sides before it reaches the top.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sharpnel on 25 December 2018, 09:00:26
I'm still wondering why there are aircraft on the deck in such heavy seas. That poor helicopter had to have suffered some damage.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 25 December 2018, 09:08:36
The site mentioned the helo had just been recovered, and that they were out for CQ, so the hangar bay may have been full.  When NIMITZ was in the soup, we had a single helo on deck in case of a man overboard.  It was tucked in as close to the island as possible, pointed toward the bow, and had its rotors folded.  Fortunately, we never had to launch it.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 25 December 2018, 09:35:50
What's the gender ratio like on a large ship like a Nimitz-class carrier or LPD? How about a Tico or Burke?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 25 December 2018, 10:05:27
It varies, and will continue to.  On ships that can accommodate women without modifications (like carriers and large deck amphibs), there's no assignment restrictions that I know of (I don't work in personnel).  Overall, women make up ~19% of the Navy, and 25% has been stated as a goal overall and aboard ships.  It's certainly less than that in general.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 26 December 2018, 08:02:27
Russian Navy's parking lot.  If i'm not mistaken, the two ships pictures are par of Udaloy-class destroyers.

(https://cdn5.img.sputniknews.com/images/105949/09/1059490931.jpg)

The ship in the background looks likes a Whiskey-Class Submarine.  Not sure if the Class is right from that view. It has deck gun on the bloody thing!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 26 December 2018, 08:15:18
Russian Navy's parking lot.  If i'm not mistaken, the two ships pictures are par of Udaloy-class destroyers.

Absolutely hnnggh.

BTW just behind the right Udaloy you can see a Stereguschiy-class corvette.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 26 December 2018, 08:29:24
The ship in the background looks likes a Whiskey-Class Submarine.  Not sure if the Class is right from that view. It has deck gun on the bloody thing!
The submarine is the Stalinets-Class submarine S-56 (see pennant on the sail), active from 1941 to 1955 and turned into a museum in the mid 70s.

P.S.: She was originally built in Leningrad from '36 to '38, then knocked down and shipped across land to be reassembled in Vladivostok, commissioning in '41, then in '42 made her way back to the Northern Fleet by way of the Panama Canal. She transferred back to Vladivostok through the Northern Sea Route in '54, where she's been since then.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 26 December 2018, 09:49:37
That pic looks like it's just begging to have a wave climb the bow and do bad things to the helicopter deck and pilot house windows.  I'd be willing to bet that the design would minimize that, though.

Yeah the X-bow design is very clever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ934OKFnHY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zZ_tzndh1U

Those short vids show the effectiveness of the hull form, even when it drops into a trough there's little splash.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 26 December 2018, 11:23:13
The submarine is the Stalinets-Class submarine S-56 (see pennant on the sail), active from 1941 to 1955 and turned into a museum in the mid 70s.

P.S.: She was originally built in Leningrad from '36 to '38, then knocked down and shipped across land to be reassembled in Vladivostok, commissioning in '41, then in '42 made her way back to the Northern Fleet by way of the Panama Canal. She transferred back to Vladivostok through the Northern Sea Route in '54, where she's been since then.

I don't even know where I'd start to find out for sure, but I'd wager that makes her the only Soviet submarine to ever transit the canal.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 26 December 2018, 16:48:12
Nah, she was with a group of six submarines according to Russian wikipedia. Apparently at least four other submarines went the other way, from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1944.

Apparently, somewhat interestingly, no Soviet/Russian warships used the canal at all between 1944 and 2008.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 28 December 2018, 00:26:18
Russian Navy's parking lot.  If i'm not mistaken, the two ships pictures are par of Udaloy-class destroyers.

(https://cdn5.img.sputniknews.com/images/105949/09/1059490931.jpg)

And here is the other side of the shot. I don't know when the above is dated, but this one was (allegedly) taken on the 25th of December, on the commissioning of 335, the Steregushchy Class corvette Gromkiy.

(https://i.postimg.cc/8cwqG1Mf/s2jymebu5j621.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 29 December 2018, 01:30:33
If i'm not mistaken, China's CV-17 (it's first domestically home-built carrier of the Type 01A Class) is almost ready for it's trials (if not already done so).  They haven't formally announced the name of the ship yet.

(http://img2.chinadaily.com.cn/images/201808/27/5b833ef5a310add1c698a252.jpeg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 29 December 2018, 07:33:41
How does the 01A compare to the Q.E.?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 29 December 2018, 14:20:16
How does the 01A compare to the Q.E.?
I'm just former enlisted guy who follows Navy related development closely.  So this is my point of view.

She has a fixed wing compliment, using no Catapult, but using up fuel to launch from the ramp.  Its still a lot of still fixed wing aircraft being kicked off the deck.  CV-17 is 55,000 tons unloaded, while QE is 65,000 tons unloaded.  While QE II is heavier ship, her air compliment are more helicopter than fixed wing.  Type 01A has same rough number of aircraft as QE, again they are fixed wing with longer ranges than QE could hope for. It's unclear from what I read since both ships are virtually new, still in their respected sea trials what their actual air compliment suppose to be made of, however it's suspected Type 01A aka CV-17 is suppose to have 32 Shenyang J-15 (Copied Su-33) Jet Fighters.  I don't think the British will be carrying alot F-35Bs for cost reasons, so its likely there will be roughly squadron of 6-8 of them on board with rest mix of Helicopters and Attack Helicopters.  I would imagine that if in a pinch, the QE could carry more Jet fighters in time of war.  How many safely is uncleared, it's not published publicly.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 29 December 2018, 14:38:03
Well here's a real beauty!

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=62767.0;attach=49738)

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 29 December 2018, 17:03:57
The actual ship the above battletech one is based on, Sovremennyy-class destroyer.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Osmotritelny.jpg)
The Osmotritelnyy, one of member class ships.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Dragon Cat on 29 December 2018, 17:32:02
I'm just former enlisted guy who follows Navy related development closely.  So this is my point of view.

She has a fixed wing compliment, using no Catapult, but using up fuel to launch from the ramp.  Its still a lot of still fixed wing aircraft being kicked off the deck.  CV-17 is 55,000 tons unloaded, while QE is 65,000 tons unloaded.  While QE II is heavier ship, her air compliment are more helicopter than fixed wing.  Type 01A has same rough number of aircraft as QE, again they are fixed wing with longer ranges than QE could hope for. It's unclear from what I read since both ships are virtually new, still in their respected sea trials what their actual air compliment suppose to be made of, however it's suspected Type 01A aka CV-17 is suppose to have 32 Shenyang J-15 (Copied Su-33) Jet Fighters.  I don't think the British will be carrying alot F-35Bs for cost reasons, so its likely there will be roughly squadron of 6-8 of them on board with rest mix of Helicopters and Attack Helicopters.  I would imagine that if in a pinch, the QE could carry more Jet fighters in time of war.  How many safely is uncleared, it's not published publicly.

Normal complement of F35 is 12 but it ramps up to 24 or something in war deployment
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: chanman on 29 December 2018, 21:24:33
The PLAN has a much larger surface fleet to flesh out the carrier's battlegroup. With 6 Type 45 Destroyers and 13 Type 23 frigates, it looks like the RN would be hard pressed to fill out two full CVBGs once your account for ships operating independently, undergoing overhaul, escorting amphibs, etc.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 30 December 2018, 01:16:33
There's a lot of sub captains around the world just ITCHING to be the first to get hull photographs of this thing...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 30 December 2018, 05:59:42
In major war the QE can carry up to 50 aircraft. Its normal load will be a lot lower.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 30 December 2018, 06:19:18
UK MOD advised that once operational, a QE would usually sail as a "commando carrier" with 12 F35Bs for air defence, or regularly with 24 F35Bs such as on her first operational deployment, or with 36 F35Bs in "all der Lightnings" mode, in addition to AEW and plane guard helis of course.

QE's first captain also said they can carry even more than that, but at reduced operational efficiency.

The PLAN has a much larger surface fleet to flesh out the carrier's battlegroup. With 6 Type 45 Destroyers and 13 Type 23 frigates, it looks like the RN would be hard pressed to fill out two full CVBGs once your account for ships operating independently, undergoing overhaul, escorting amphibs, etc.
Most any event calling for both QE and POW to operate will not have any RN ships operating independently, it'll be a all hands on deck effort similar to 1982.

But of course the PLAN is much bigger than the RN, no denying that.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 30 December 2018, 16:55:58
I imagine the plan is to never operate Liz and Wales together at all, but cycle them in an on/off schedule - one in the water doing things, the other in dock for maintenance.  Considering the cycle times for US CVNs, and the smaller design, I could see them trading off every 24 months or so.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 31 December 2018, 15:15:06
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/96ffa299c5896b8d85fc3f245552f471/tumblr_pa6b6zqpnk1s7e5k5o1_1280.jpg)

The Italian motor torpedo boat MAS 15. in 1918, she sank the Austro-Hungarian battleship SMS Szent Istvan.

W.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 31 December 2018, 15:28:09
French Torpedo Boat No 63 in what is believed to be 1880.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/French_Torpedo_Boat_No._63.png)

Sadly there isn't alot on her, what is interesting about this picture is was taken in the Military port of Toulon, France's main naval dockyard, It's been speculated that the bow of the ship facing the camera is to the French ironclad Couronne, which seems to have operated from Toulon.  The vessel in the right background it's suspected to be the French ironclad Gloire, the world's first ironclad warship.

(This info came from Wikipedia question).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 31 December 2018, 16:48:41
Torpedo boat?  Looks pretty sub-ish to me though it does have a rear facing funnel?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 31 December 2018, 19:37:32
back then the line between submarines and torpedo boats was more blurred.

according to some quick research, that's a 3rd Class French Navy Torpedo boat built by Thornycroft by their Chiswick yard in 1878, modifying the HMS Lightning design. it had a Steam Engine (using a modified locomotive engine design) and was armed with a single spar torpedo. like most early torpedo boats, it was built to have a very low waterline. what we now would call a semi-submersible. the idea being that being so low in the water would make it harder to detect and hit, while also putting the spar torpedo into the right position when it hit the target to break the enemy's keel.
as a 3rd class design it was meant for harbor defense rather than fleet use, thus the lack of any secondary weapons. though supposedly it had good sea handling. the french would later refit three of that model to have a single whitehead torpedo tube, and would go on to build their own knockoff versions of the torpedo armed ones.

while nothing i've found on it says specifically, i'd guess it probably started out as a 1st or 2nd class ship (for use in fleet actions or coastal defense) but the advent the Royal Navy adopting the whitehead torpedo only a year or so before the Torpilleur 8 through 19 were delivered saw the design downgraded, since spar torpedoes were obsolete.

given the hull number i'm personally not convinced that is the 1878 Thornycroft design though.. especially since it doesn't look much like the HMS Lightning.
as first designed:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/HMS_Lightning_-_Torpedo_Boat_1877.jpg)
post-2nd refit to add the whitehead torpedo tube. (first refit added two torps in drop collars hung off the sides.. which proved unreliable)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/HMS_Lightning_1876_model.jpg)

my guess it would either be one of the french built knockoffs, which switched to diesel engines, or a one off Thornycroft built one from the mid to late 1880's. many of their designs from then have similar lines.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 31 December 2018, 20:47:20
given the hull number i'm personally not convinced that is the 1878 Thornycroft design though..
The 33m type that No 63 belongs to were built at Normand between 1882 and 1885 with 15 units built (No 60 to 74), based on a prototype submitted by Normand as an alternative to the Thornycroft prototype series. The first six - including No 63 - were built with a single 15-inch torpedo tube, the last nine with a ram bow and 14-inch torpedo tube.

That they were built by Normand is important insofar as the French Navy subsequently "redesigned" them inhouse and handed serial production of the next derivative type with 51 units built to about every shipyard except Normand. Normand reacted by submitting their own derivative design again, and managed to land the contracts for the next three series with a total of 165 units built during the 1890s.

while nothing i've found on it says specifically, i'd guess it probably started out as a 1st or 2nd class ship (for use in fleet actions or coastal defense)
The "1st"/"2nd" effectively only denotes the generation for French torpedo boats of that time.

Generation 1 = introduced before 1880
Generation 2 = introduced before 1890
Generation 3 = introduced after 1890

Initially Generation 1 was introduced as "Torpilleurs de Garde-Cotes" (coast guard torpedo boats). When Generation 2 (like the 33m type) rolled in they decided to split that into the new ships as the "Torpilleurs de 1ere Class" and the old ships as the "Torpilleurs de 2eme Class". In 1890, with the introduction of Generation 3, these again became 1ere Class and the older two classes were pushed back one number, thus creating 2eme/3eme Class (some smaller high sea torpedo boats were also pressed into the scheme by displacement in 1890, with the Doudard de Lagrée class becoming part of 2eme Class).

The exception to this 1st/2nd/3rd class scheme were the "Torpilleurs-Vedettes", which existed as a separate class of small torpedo boats - defined as below 20t displacement in 1890. The 17 "Torpilleurs-Vedettes" - of three types - were intended to be carried as deployed by carrier ships, for which only one existed: the torpedo boat carrier Foudre. The name may be familiar, since after the concept was abandoned this ship was rebuilt into the first seaplane carrier.


Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 31 December 2018, 20:52:12
And we think the games contractors and governments play these days are rough...  ::)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 01 January 2019, 04:54:37
Torpedo boat?  Looks pretty sub-ish to me though it does have a rear facing funnel?

From what I've read, modern submarines effectively evolved from torpedo boats. Despite there being several noteworthy submarines before torpedo boats were even conceived, their true genesis comes from a mix between torpedo boats and destroyers.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 01 January 2019, 14:58:52
(https://i.imgur.com/bNkpc6K.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 January 2019, 15:08:40
That is a gorgeous picture Marauder...  And you could even say it includes a submarine or two... ;)

More seriously, that is one heck of a filter on the camera!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 January 2019, 15:14:17
Proof it's flat after all, you can even see the edge of the ocean!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 01 January 2019, 15:24:11
Dutch Holland-class OPV, what a beaut

Could adding a Marlet or Hellfire type missile launcher improve its usefulness against pirates/suicide boats, or is it overspec?

(https://i.postimg.cc/xd3fXgqL/Capture.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 January 2019, 15:34:32
I think Hellfires are overkill if you have a decent deck gun.  They're WAY more expensive than another medium caliber round.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 01 January 2019, 16:42:14
Dutch Holland-class OPV, what a beaut

Could adding a Marlet or Hellfire type missile launcher improve its usefulness against pirates/suicide boats, or is it overspec?

Like Daryk said that's overkill. You would want to bring such launcher IF the pirate/insurgent have tougher boats.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 01 January 2019, 17:50:36
The Combat Management System of the Hollands is only wired for two additional Hitrole-NT .50cal RWS (on top of the two installed) as additional weapon systems. The two current ones are mounted starboard of the bridge and port on the hangar edge, the additional two would be added in the relative positions on the other side.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 01 January 2019, 20:14:22
Given that an OPV that ever encounters a particularly suicidal batch of smugglers/pirates may find itself having to tank an RPG or two, having a cluster of highly explosive missiles onboard where an armor-piercing warhead can reach them might not be the wisest idea. And since most ships sent to deal with pirates are usually going for arrests rather than kills, you're definitely going to be in range when stupidity announces itself.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 01 January 2019, 20:56:52
As a non-squid type I will happily accept the corrections, but I assume the advantage of the 76mm main gun, the 36mm secondary gun and the 50-cals on the Holland-class OPVs is that you can use them to fire warning shots across the bow of the vessel you are asking politely to heave to and prepare to receive your boarding party, not sure that Hellfires have an equivalent operating mode and if they did, it is a very expensive warning shot.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 January 2019, 21:08:31
Guns give you all kinds of options that missiles don't.  Aside from the ammunition being vastly cheaper, you can stop shooting before they're totally destroyed.  You generally don't do "disabling fire" with missiles.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 01 January 2019, 21:26:14
Guns give you all kinds of options that missiles don't.  Aside from the ammunition being vastly cheaper, you can stop shooting before they're totally destroyed.  You generally don't do "disabling fire" with missiles.

To be fair, we generally don't do disabling fire at all. The ocean is an unforgiving environment, and shooting up the engine spaces tends to put a lot of holes in the hull below the waterline, so the overall effect is much the same.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 January 2019, 21:29:35
It kind of falls in the category of "stop shooting before they sink".  Missiles don't usually give you that option.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 01 January 2019, 21:32:26
Gets even worse if you use proper missiles like RAM in HAS mode for this purpose - and yes, that's part of their mission portfolio on German frigates. RAM in HAS mode does not have target discrimination. At all. Point it in a direction and the missiles will find and destroy any target that matches their common target patterns. If necessary sequentially in salvo fire with a new missile fired every second.

Funnily that's not even seen as a problem. If you're firing RAM from a frigate at boats you know what you're doing after all. With the next iteration - Block 2B - the missiles will get a datalink. Not one to the ship so you could direct them towards the right targets and abort if necessary, mind you. But a pure missile-to-missile link so the swarm can better coordinate which missile attacks which target in that vector.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 January 2019, 21:43:14
Missile-to-missile data links are bad news for anyone on the receiving end.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 01 January 2019, 21:46:12
Well I guess the idea is that a light missile would give the OPV a role in at least surface protection against, say, a missile team on a fast boat trying to land a shot on a hovercraft during inshore/littoral ops eg amphibious landings. Or is it totally unnecessary to involve an OPV in that kind of tasking?

@kato - can RAM target boats?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 01 January 2019, 21:57:51
@kato - can RAM target boats?
That's what the HAS mode is for - "Helicopter/Aircraft/Surface" targeting. It basically loads a set of alternative target patterns for the IIR seeker which include typical emission patterns of small boats. Any RAM missile from Block 1 onward can be modified to HAS mode; don't know if there's still any Block 0 around anywhere, really doubt it (the German ones reached their shelf life around 2013 and were discarded in live-fire trials over several annual deployments in South Africa).

Or is it totally unnecessary to involve an OPV in that kind of tasking?
The main role of the Hollands is counter-narco patrol and general naval presence in the Carribean, to give it a scope.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 January 2019, 22:00:44
I couldn't find the picture I was looking for, but this is close enough.  When the OPFOR targets are cheaper than your missiles, you're losing.  Guns are pretty much the only answer.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/IRGC_naval_execise-2015_%2810%29.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 01 January 2019, 22:07:19
That's what the HAS mode is for - "Helicopter/Aircraft/Surface" targeting. It basically loads a set of alternative target patterns for the IIR seeker which include typical emission patterns of small boats. Any RAM missile from Block 1 onward can be modified to HAS mode; don't know if there's still any Block 0 around anywhere, really doubt it (the German ones reached their shelf life around 2013 and were discarded in live-fire trials over several annual deployments in South Africa).
The main role of the Hollands is counter-narco patrol and general naval presence in the Carribean, to give it a scope.
Why doesn't everyone ditch Phalanx for RAM/SeaRAM? Cost? (Those are million-dollar/shot weapons I understand)

Re: Hollands - See, if I were a narco, and I go to the trouble of building fast submersibles even, or say the nascent local chapter of the Global Liberation Army or whatever terrorist org flavour of the year, I might even find it worthwhile to invest in a black market TOW or Konkurs and make drug interdiction or sea policing that much more exciting, eh? So wouldn't it be nice to have something that can quickly, reliably and precisely erase anybody who tried doing that...?

I dunno, maybe I'm thinking too Clive Owen/Tom Clancy for the real world. But hey I thought those narco subs were purely fictional too. Whoda thunk huh?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 January 2019, 22:11:42
Cost and reload time.  Missiles are somewhat more difficult to reload than a rotary cannon (not that they're easy).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 01 January 2019, 22:13:43
My understanding is that the effective range of an RPG-7 against a moving target is around 200m (500m against a stationary target).

76mm main gun is probably overkill and you may have trouble getting rounds on target against fast and maneuverable targets like skidoos with a RPG-7 toting crewman but I would have thought that the this would be the target rich environment where a 25-30mm rapid fire cannon (secondary gun on the Holland-class) and the 50-cal remote weapons stations would excel at with their range, high rate of fire and ability to track and walk the fall of shot to the target. The 7.62mm GPMG would then be a good back-up for anything that looks like getting through the killzones.

Nothing gets you to reconsider your career options like incendiary and tracer 50-cal being walked into your current position.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 January 2019, 22:17:53
Those gentlemen in the picture might argue that last point with you...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 01 January 2019, 22:39:03
I did not say reconsider your commitment to the cause . . . but there is that moment when that training / recruitment / REMF role that you turned down 6 months earlier suddenly become more appealing . . .
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 01 January 2019, 22:48:34
Why doesn't everyone ditch Phalanx for RAM/SeaRAM? Cost? (Those are million-dollar/shot weapons I understand)

Re: Hollands - See, if I were a narco, and I go to the trouble of building fast submersibles even, or say the nascent local chapter of the Global Liberation Army or whatever terrorist org flavour of the year, I might even find it worthwhile to invest in a black market TOW or Konkurs and make drug interdiction or sea policing that much more exciting, eh? So wouldn't it be nice to have something that can quickly, reliably and precisely erase anybody who tried doing that...?

I dunno, maybe I'm thinking too Clive Owen/Tom Clancy for the real world. But hey I thought those narco subs were purely fictional too. Whoda thunk huh?

modern piracy tends to exist mainly in Political and socioeconomic conditions that make getting good gear like that non-profitable.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 January 2019, 23:20:38
It depends on what kind of fastboat threat you're facing.  Pirates with an RPG, AKs, and maybe a Dushka or two, yeah, a .50 (or three, why stop at one!) is a nice inexpensive way to deal with it at ranges that the opfor can't.

If you're talking about a threat like Iran's FACs and their ASMs, then a: hell yes give me SEARAM and b: wait why am I taking a coastal patrol/antismuggler ship into a warzone.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 02 January 2019, 00:21:52
If you're talking about a threat like Iran's FACs and their ASMs, then a: hell yes give me SEARAM and b: wait why am I taking a coastal patrol/antismuggler ship into a warzone.

Fully agree with you, and that is when I would be reconsidering that training / recruitment / REMF role that I turned down 6 months earlier which has suddenly become more appealing  :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 02 January 2019, 00:38:51

b: wait why am I taking a coastal patrol/antismuggler ship into a warzone.
all kinds of ships tend to be drafted in a war, including civvy ships

an OPV might be used to nursemaid said civvy auxiliaries in a relatively low-threat environment

it would be nice if it can do something useful against, say, 5 or 6 speedboats with ATGM teams on board, or in light of modern developments, 5 or 6 remotely-controlled speedboats packed with explosives

just spitballin' yeah...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 02 January 2019, 06:33:29
all kinds of ships tend to be drafted in a war, including civvy ships

an OPV might be used to nursemaid said civvy auxiliaries in a relatively low-threat environment

it would be nice if it can do something useful against, say, 5 or 6 speedboats with ATGM teams on board, or in light of modern developments, 5 or 6 remotely-controlled speedboats packed with explosives

just spitballin' yeah...

History would state otherwise. Navies of the world frown upon having civilian ships included in anything other than convoy role, and they avoid coastlines like the plague.

Speedboats or jetskis with RPGs etc are only a danger in a strict littoral environment. Anything beyond sight of the shore they tend to lose their capacity, as they are almost totally dependent on third party guidance, usually from the shore. If the larger vessels have a full head of steam up and are coming into or out of port, they can be left holding the bag as they either struggle to keep up, give themselves away before they can fire or can't get out of the anchorage fast enough to achieve contact.

We tend to see them as a larger threat than they really are because western nations have a tendency to worry about "The War" as opposed to "A War", a dangerous tendency which leaves us woefully unprepared for future conflicts. This is not unique to any given nation, it's part of the professional military ideal, where the members get so good at the conduct of the current conflict that we forget that not all conflicts are like this one.

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 02 January 2019, 06:45:09
I always liked the look of the Soviet's Moskva class helo carriers

(http://militarynavalhistory.net/shippictures/igs_aircraft_carriers/low_res/moskva_01.jpg)

(http://militarynavalhistory.net/shippictures/igs_aircraft_carriers/low_res/moskva_02.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Moskva_class_Moskva_flightdeck_cruiser%2C_starboard_quarter_view.jpg)

Designed in the 60's to hunt for Polaris subs the Moskva's are self escorting ships with a mix of SAM's and a long range anti-sub missile launcher that carried a nuclear warhead, but their main armament was their helecopters.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 02 January 2019, 07:13:39
@marauder648 - I have the book those illustrations came from, yes it did contribute to my undue fascination with naval warships.

Hard to find similar illustrations these days, whether online or deadtree.

...
Speedboats or jetskis with RPGs etc are only a danger in a strict littoral environment. Anything beyond sight of the shore they tend to lose their capacity, as they are almost totally dependent on third party guidance, usually from the shore.
...
We tend to see them as a larger threat than they really are because western nations have a tendency to worry about "The War" as opposed to "A War", a dangerous tendency which leaves us woefully unprepared for future conflicts.
...
Very true all.

Anyway I admit the specific comparison I had in mind were the RN's old Type 21 frigates which served in the Falklands War. Similar mass and dimensions, bigger gun, added Exocet missiles and Seacat SAMs. They helped support the beach landings and two ships were lost.

Adding SAMs and a missile system, if not a towed sonar array, would give the Holland OPV more utility, I feel.

Also there's this: Singapore's Independence class "littoral mission vessels" aka gunboats. Just 2/3rds the size, range and endurance of the Holland-class OPVs and lacks a hangar, but at least has the same gun and 12 MICA-VL SAMs for point defence.

(https://i.postimg.cc/cHr3sJNn/b6004aaf43dbcfb743aa1b54a758f57d-L.jpg)

Very interesting infographic here: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Bg2r3EuafDc/VZzzqZNeAtI/AAAAAAAAA8I/HdqwstjkQa8/s1600/LMV.jpg
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 02 January 2019, 07:27:15
Why doesn't everyone ditch Phalanx for RAM/SeaRAM? Cost? (Those are million-dollar/shot weapons I understand)
Industry-politics related in my opinion. General Dynamics wants their share.

RAM is also always backed up by smaller caliber guns for the close-in work (and for when you want to discriminate), adding topdeck weight and CIC console space.

Anything beyond sight of the shore they tend to lose their capacity, as they are almost totally dependent on third party guidance, usually from the shore.
Which is why the defense suite also includes a hefty dose of ECM systems.

There's a regular series of littoral warfare maneuvers in the Baltic Sea, Northern Coasts. Probably the largest exercise in that kind of warfare these days, been going on for ten years now with around 4,000-5,000 soldiers, 40-50 ships and 20 aircraft every year.

And it has components exactly along those lines. Defending against: small groups of speedboats from the beaches, shore-to-sea ATGM and mortar use against ships, shoreside EW blanketing the naval task group, helos and aircraft popping up over the shoreline between hills, mine warfare in archipelagos, targets hiding in large amounts of civilian vessels etc. When that got a bit repetitive they added hostile submarines. And when that got repetitive they added landing troops to the shore in that kind of context, both amphibious with landing craft andd helos from LPDs, SOF from small boats and submarines and larger-scale paratrooper drops after securing the seaside airspace.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 02 January 2019, 07:54:03

76mm main gun is probably overkill and you may have trouble getting rounds on target against fast and maneuverable targets like skidoos with a RPG-7 toting crewman but
Many gun system that use 76mm are quite capable of engaging air targets including missiles with it.

Also remember the Autocannon's Precision Rounds?
Say hello to the DART; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_76_mm#DART
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 02 January 2019, 08:22:46
Cheers and thanks for that HH, I learn something new every day  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 02 January 2019, 09:10:22
According to Wikipedia the Holland-class isn't set up to carry more weapons as-is, but have the space for a VLS, larger CIC and more guns if they feel the need for a "real" warship (and can afford it). I figure the lack of missiles is because it would make the ships more expensive to operate, without adding anything to their, essentially, police capabilities.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 02 January 2019, 09:34:16
without adding anything to their, essentially, police capabilities.

Most important part! A constabulary vessel is a constabulary vessel! Don't try to make it a front line, or even a second line, warship. Build your warships to fight, and your constabulary units to patrol, and you will have a much more effective navy.

Speaking of which, the RAN's new OPV, a design from Lürssen Werft:
(https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/OPV.png)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 02 January 2019, 10:50:03
Germany is buying three of those from Lürssen - for its police, not its navy.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 02 January 2019, 18:40:31
Got keep'em trained.  Republic of Korea launches it's first auxiliary training ship, Hansando.
She a 4,500 ton Training ship, she has single 3inch forward and 40mm cannon aft above what i think is the hanger.
She reported to have anti-missile decoy system.

Aside equipped handle 400 crew and students, she can also act as hospital ship as well.

(https://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2018/November/HHI_Launched_First_Auxiliary_Training_Ship_Hansando_for_ROK_Navy.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 02 January 2019, 18:48:55
400 in that thing?  That sounds more than a little crowded...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 02 January 2019, 20:00:06
French training ship slash helicopter cruiser Jeanne d'Arc.

(https://abload.de/img/jeanne2k9c5a.jpg)

Decommissioned in 2010, being dismantled since ca 2014 - the picture is from then. Current designation is "Hull Q860". Oddly she still carries both her remaining 100mm turrets and the launch containers for her six Exocets, guess the Navy sends those to the scrappers too nowadays.

In peacetime role she'd sail around Africa with 150 cadets onboard - on top of her crew of another 480. In wartime role she'd carry eight heavy helos equipped for ASW, OTH targeting of her Exocets and for heavy interdiction (those things carried 20mm door guns).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 04 January 2019, 03:43:19
Germany is buying three of those from Lürssen - for its police, not its navy.

We don't have oceanic police, but our small vessels cover all constabulary duties.

French training ship slash helicopter cruiser Jeanne d'Arc.

(https://abload.de/img/jeanne2k9c5a.jpg)

Decommissioned in 2010, being dismantled since ca 2014 - the picture is from then. Current designation is "Hull Q860". Oddly she still carries both her remaining 100mm turrets and the launch containers for her six Exocets, guess the Navy sends those to the scrappers too nowadays.

In peacetime role she'd sail around Africa with 150 cadets onboard - on top of her crew of another 480. In wartime role she'd carry eight heavy helos equipped for ASW, OTH targeting of her Exocets and for heavy interdiction (those things carried 20mm door guns).

The last decade has seen the RAN institute a policy of "training ship" duties for ships close to paying off. Sydney undertook training duties in 2011 IIRC, then Darwin after her, and now Melbourne, with Newcastle coming up next. We no longer keep decommissioned ships as training vessels, just commissioned ships at the end of their lifespan. It's every bit the nightmare decommissioned training ships were, with a greater burden on the crew because they have to conform to readiness and ceremonial requirements.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 04 January 2019, 08:44:30
Sad to see such a historic ship turned into scrap .
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: grimlock1 on 04 January 2019, 09:20:45
French training ship slash helicopter cruiser Jeanne d'Arc.

(https://abload.de/img/jeanne2k9c5a.jpg)

Decommissioned in 2010, being dismantled since ca 2014 - the picture is from then. Current designation is "Hull Q860". Oddly she still carries both her remaining 100mm turrets and the launch containers for her six Exocets, guess the Navy sends those to the scrappers too nowadays.

In peacetime role she'd sail around Africa with 150 cadets onboard - on top of her crew of another 480. In wartime role she'd carry eight heavy helos equipped for ASW, OTH targeting of her Exocets and for heavy interdiction (those things carried 20mm door guns).
Which helos did she carry?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 04 January 2019, 09:55:51
Which helos did she carry?
Super Frelon for ASW/transport in wartime. Think Sea King, but 30% bigger.

Standard flight group was 8, which was the limit that fit in the hangar (conceptually they apparently also had 3 Lynx in the flight group, parked on deck). Half the hangar was repurposed for housing the cadets in peacetime configuration though, hence only being able to carry 4 in peacetime.

The helicopters carried 4 Mk44 torpedos, 4 depth charges or two Exocets. Plus dipping sonar. And internal add-on tanks that gave them a 4-hour ASW patrol endurance. And said 20mm door gun.

They kept one 8-helo ASW flight group around for her until 2007, then went down to a 4-helo group until she retired. Originally there were 24 of them procured in the 60s.

(https://abload.de/img/photo26bzcvp.jpg)

In her training cruiser role she was usually outfitted with lighter helos for transport, liaison and interdiction roles. Typically this was 2 Alouette III from Naval Aviation plus (since 1992) 2 Cougar and 2-3 Gazelle from Army Aviation.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 04 January 2019, 09:58:29
Super Frelon for ASW/transport in wartime. Think Sea King, but 30% bigger.
...
The helicopters carried 4 Mk44 torpedos
...
WOW 8) BIG guys!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 04 January 2019, 13:38:20
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/0d0e78c76e055d443789b078a8c436c4/tumblr_pkil5nPTyi1uky4nio1_1280.jpg)

The Admiral Hipper following the capture of Kiel.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 04 January 2019, 13:44:49
The picture looks off . . .
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 04 January 2019, 15:13:00
It's a colorized version of a picture from the official Imperial War Museum (UK).

The picture is always a bit suspicious as to its exact timing because Hipper was scuttled in that drydock on May 2nd (before the picture was supposedly taken, British troops arrived May 4th) and in other pictures lays far deeper with a very notable cant.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 04 January 2019, 16:01:53
I am familiar with IWM- lol, wish they had some bigger shirts, my wife wears my HMS Belfast t-shirt now.

Colorizing is why it looks off to me, explains its CGI look.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 04 January 2019, 16:24:32
It's a colorized version of a picture from the official Imperial War Museum (UK).

The picture is always a bit suspicious as to its exact timing because Hipper was scuttled in that drydock on May 2nd (before the picture was supposedly taken, British troops arrived May 4th) and in other pictures lays far deeper with a very notable cant.
It looks to be listing at 10-15 degrees in that picture.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 04 January 2019, 16:53:46
(http://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.ZRk4xsVT1UAG_GrwvzphZAHaJ0)

(Note the mast of the light cruiser Emden at far right)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 04 January 2019, 17:18:01
IMO the biggest question is when it was draped with camo nets.  The color picture also seems to be a narrower slip and show more damage to the ship- B&W shows both turrets aligned and gun barrels at the same level.  Color pic also seems to show more damage with a break in the deck's armor belt.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 04 January 2019, 20:52:34
The Japanese WWII era Hashidate class Gunship Uji
She was armed with three 120mm guns, and pair of 25mm aa-guns.  She also had depth charges.

Funny is she lasted longer in service than most ships her generation, since was prize of war for Republic of China and later People's Republic of China ending up being named the Nan Chang after being captured during the Chinese Civil War.

She was scrapped in the 1980s.

Found couple interesting pictures of the ship.  I imagine that the bamboo they used around the bridge was protect from bullets or flying debris.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=49852)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 07 January 2019, 15:09:44
That was pretty common for Japanese ships, using extra padding around the bridge and flag facilities to protect from splinters and such. The carriers at Midway had the crew's bedrolls rolled and stuffed against the island structures, for example. (Akagi is shown here)(

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/3b/2d/073b2d472b3f65559534e387722c55ad.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 07 January 2019, 15:31:37
....did they also have daily grog rations, issue a dozen lashes and fire chain shot at the enemy?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 07 January 2019, 15:33:45
That was pretty common for Japanese ships, using extra padding around the bridge and flag facilities to protect from splinters and such. The carriers at Midway had the crew's bedrolls rolled and stuffed against the island structures, for example. (Akagi is shown here)(

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/3b/2d/073b2d472b3f65559534e387722c55ad.jpg)

My condolences to the guy who gets off shift only to be informed that his bedding is currently strapped to the captain's ready room.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 07 January 2019, 17:07:22
....did they also have daily grog rations, issue a dozen lashes and fire chain shot at the enemy?

in the IJN, it was Sake Rations (flag officers usually arranged for Scotch or other such western drinks) Army troops got Sake or Rice Beer, whichever was available. Tea was the staple drink for both branches though. Military troops from both branches tended to get rather more food and luxuries than the civilians (more meat and veggies in their meals for example. and rations of various sweets), partly because the troops needed the extra protein and vitamins, partly as an incentive to join the military. this usually only worked out as planned in garrison though.. their ability to supply troops in the field was terrible. and their food issue had dietary problem in that they used white rice exclusively, which caused dietary deficiencies civilians (who largely ate brown rice) didn't get.

Flogging was a standard punishment for extreme offenses in both the imperial japanses navy and army. (it was also part of the law code for civilians as well so not surprising)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 07 January 2019, 20:33:59
The issue with dietary deficiencies due to eating white rice (primarily beriberi, or thiamine deficiency) actually date back centuries in Japan.  White rice was a luxury food that nobles tried to get as much as they could, eating it exclusively if possible and leading to one of the few instances of a society in which the upper class were more prone to a dietary deficiency condition than the lower class.  Until the 19th Century, it was believed by Japanese people to be a disease caused by living in the capital city, so when you got it you went out to the country to recover.  And, since white rice was much harder to get in the country, people did recover because they were eating brown rice, beans, meat, and other things that were high in thiamine.

In the late 19th Century, a Japanese physician noticed that foreigners almost never developed the condition despite living in the same conditions as the nobles who did and began to speculate about it being caused by diet.  To this end, he actually had a Japanes Navy ship equipped with the fare that Western ships carried and had it sail to New Zealand and back.  Unlike most Japanese ships, which again relied almost exclusively on white rice and regularly lost a serious percentage of the crew on long voyages, this ship only lost three sailors, all of whom had refused to eat anything but white rice.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 07 January 2019, 21:51:11
dum dum dum DA DA dum DA DA dum...
dum dum dum DA DA dum DA DA dum DA DA dum...
dum DA dum da-da-da dum, da-dum dum da-da-da dum
da dum, da-da dum, da-da dum, da-da dum...

(https://i.postimg.cc/dt88BYH1/1xg5mszg8l821.jpg)


one of the few instances of a society in which the upper class were more prone to a dietary deficiency condition than the lower class. 

the European nobility tended to have problems from not eating enough vegetables

and IIRC it wasn't a "centuries-old" problem, wasn't it only after the Meiji restoration that the Japanese nobility could afford to eat exclusively polished rice and so encounter this remarkable phenomenon?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 07 January 2019, 22:04:24
Are those torpedo nets I see rigged on those grand ladies?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 07 January 2019, 22:14:10
the European nobility tended to have problems from not eating enough vegetables

Not to the same extent, since there wasn't the same focus on eating a single food to the exclusion of everything else.

Quote
and IIRC it wasn't a "centuries-old" problem, wasn't it only after the Meiji restoration that the Japanese nobility could afford to eat exclusively polished rice and so encounter this remarkable phenomenon?

The article I read on the subject claimed it was a condition that was known in Japan since the 16th or 17th century, but it became far more widespread during the Meiji period as polished rice became more readily available.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Van Gogh on 08 January 2019, 02:22:36
Are those torpedo nets I see rigged on those grand ladies?

Nelsons were not fitted with anti-torpedo nets, and most WW1 ships ditched them when refitted.
Should be paravanes for anti-mine work. Conway's battleships has a contemporary picticure of Queen Liz using one.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 08 January 2019, 04:29:26
Not to the same extent, since there wasn't the same focus on eating a single food to the exclusion of everything else.
For some time it was however a sign of wealth to have bad teeth. Only rich persons could afford sugar! :D

The article I read on the subject claimed it was a condition that was known in Japan since the 16th or 17th century, but it became far more widespread during the Meiji period as polished rice became more readily available.
The one I read said this was one of the clues to the cause. Once machines made white rice affordable the "disease" spread outside the nobility and some people started drawing the correct conclusions.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 08 January 2019, 08:07:58
Are those torpedo nets I see rigged on those grand ladies?
Those wood poles are intended for boats the crew uses to ferry to ship to shore. The nets are used sometimes for the crew climb up and on. If look look at the center Battleship closely u can see crew climbing down on to boat.  Not every port bavk then had dredged harbors or acquit pier room for those battlewagons.

Glad it was fairly rare now for ships to resort to that method to getting to shore exept for largest ships such as amphibious assault ships and of course Aircraft Carriers.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 12 January 2019, 04:40:27
(https://i.imgur.com/ULdZmvq.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 January 2019, 04:58:38
Great photo.  You never get a good impression of just how big those damn things were usually.  At least it's got spare parts from its sisters to run a while longer; Donskoy is the last of the Typhoons.  I get the feeling they'll keep it around a while for the prestige and title, even if the Boreis are still significantly bigger than anyone else's boomers.

Seven submarines in close formation indeed!

(https://c7.uihere.com/files/164/273/221/typhoon-class-submarine-ohio-class-submarine-nuclear-submarine-ballistic-missile-class.jpg)

Getting from place to place in one of those must get weird after a while.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Dragon Cat on 12 January 2019, 06:28:08
Surely there was some sort of passage way from one part to another
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 12 January 2019, 06:56:38
Surely there was some sort of passage way from one part to another

Yep :) What you're just seeing the main pressure hulls there, each one was interconnected by their own bulkheads and water tight compartments/doors etc.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 12 January 2019, 07:40:26
Donskoy has been decommed IINM. Or not sailing operationally at least. It's all on the Boreis now.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 January 2019, 12:46:11
She was out a year ago, got a bunch of news doing various things across 2017; concluding with surfacing through ice in the White Sea on December 28.  Pops up again in June 2018 https://www.rt.com/news/428510-russian-northern-fleet-anniversary/ here, behind Velikiy.

Meanwhile Kuznetsov's still got a big hole in her flight deck from the crane collapse; according to the Ukrainians Moscow is planning to send her to China for repairs since they don't have dock facilities to handle her.  Grain of salt and all that, but I really feel bad for the Russian Navy if this is all they can do.  Pride hurts...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 12 January 2019, 14:58:50
What dig is, the Chinese may show how repairing a ship like her is done. As it stands, their more experts repairing Kuznetsov-Class Aircraft Carriers than Russians are.

Kuznetsov in better days.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6PlIQZL6HMY/Urg-dhydT9I/AAAAAAAADU0/eyiJocXKYhU/s1600/kuznetsov14.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 12 January 2019, 15:58:38
Front half of an Akula class under construction ...

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6e/b4/da/6eb4dadba578996eccf17be7ffab8db0.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 12 January 2019, 16:12:45
An Akula, or a Typhoon?  ???
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 12 January 2019, 16:20:53
Soviet's name for them was Akula. NATO code was Typhoon. Same reason I call them Mad Dogs and Mist Lynxs ;)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 12 January 2019, 16:24:50
The first Project 971 boat (K-284) was also named "Akula", so it wasn't just NATO confusing things.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 12 January 2019, 17:09:13
The Akula/Typhoon was quite a amazing boat.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 12 January 2019, 17:44:41
Borei Class SSBN
(http://www.military-today.com/navy/borei_class_l2.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 12 January 2019, 22:12:40
What dig is, the Chinese may show how repairing a ship like her is done. As it stands, their more experts repairing Kuznetsov-Class Aircraft Carriers than Russians are.

Kuznetsov in better days.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6PlIQZL6HMY/Urg-dhydT9I/AAAAAAAADU0/eyiJocXKYhU/s1600/kuznetsov14.jpg)

I don't think that's Kuznetsov.  The helicopter flying near the bow looks like a Harbin Z-9.

Edit:  On second though (and looking a some pics of the Kuznetsov and Liaoning) I guess that does look like Kuznetsov. 
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 13 January 2019, 00:09:48
I don't think that's Kuznetsov.  The helicopter flying near the bow looks like a Harbin Z-9.

Edit:  On second though (and looking a some pics of the Kuznetsov and Liaoning) I guess that does look like Kuznetsov.
Ack, i think your right.  I missed the obvious clues it's Russian ship.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_THosNXNQORw/S8TLaJm4_yI/AAAAAAAAJ78/xpXdPHbGeGg/s1600/admiral_kuznetsov_aircraft_carrier.jpg)

The Kuznetsov beat up, has dark smoke from it's stacks, has Russian red star and her registration number.   :P
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 13 January 2019, 03:46:18
(https://i.imgur.com/yGaLHcO.jpg)

Not sure if this goes here or in the plane post.

and there's a nice gallery of the Soviet WiGE stuff here - https://imgur.com/gallery/ezf3Pkt
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 13 January 2019, 12:46:20
(https://i.imgur.com/yGaLHcO.jpg)

Not sure if this goes here or in the plane post.

and there's a nice gallery of the Soviet WiGE stuff here - https://imgur.com/gallery/ezf3Pkt


The Lun was such a great idea...would of been bad for the west if Operational.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 14 January 2019, 05:25:33
Breaking news:

US Navy discovers deck gun ammunition is less expensive than guided missiles (https://news.usni.org/2019/01/08/navy-quietly-fires-20-hyper-velocity-projectiles-destroyers-deckgun)

Now, for something that's a real picture and - despite being a Confederate ship - is worthy of recognition, at least as a tough but short-lived combatant with a gutsy crew and captain.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/CSS_Arkansas_2.jpg)

She launched at the end of April in 1862, was fitted with railroad tracks for armor and set sail for the war in early June of that year...and was scuttled and torched by her crew on August 6.  During those eight weeks?  Aside from enough engine troubles to make Scotty's engine room look mundane, engaged and disabled the monitor USS Carondelet, chased two other US ships into an entire federal fleet of thirty five ships at Vicksburg, traded shells with literally every ship in the armada and shrugged off everything that came in, broke the blockade of Vicksburg, acted as a fleet in being by herself keeping the federal fleet occupied 24/7 just by acting like she was about to set sail, out-stubborned the fleet which finally broke the siege and left, and charged off to battle to Baton Rouge before her engines finally gave out and failed completely...and when loaded with enough ammo to scuttle her, she broke free of the moorings and drifted towards the US ships threatening the city, which backed off and stayed the hell away from this unmanned burning rage machine before it finally exploded.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sharpnel on 14 January 2019, 08:09:31
You forgot the most important thing, the ship's name. CSS Arkansas, btw, when checking the link in the foto
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 14 January 2019, 22:39:48
...Whoops!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 15 January 2019, 00:46:16
If I was to recreate her in TW...

What armaments would you gents recommend for her? Wooden hull and BAR 7ish armor?

Heavy Rifle Cannon or more Medium weight? 8 tons for 6 ammo, 12 Long, 2 Min. vs. 5 tons for 9 ammo, 15 Long, 1 Min.?

Or run LAC/5's?

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 15 January 2019, 01:09:01
Do you want something that's accurate to the stats or something playable?

Because honestly Civil War era guns and armor shouldn't even register on mech scale combat.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 15 January 2019, 01:13:11
Well historically, yes... but let's say that a Periphery water world want's to increase it's waterhole defenses...

What recommendations would you suggest? Class C and under Factory Mods only...

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 15 January 2019, 10:19:14
For guns firing solid shot, don't ever go higher than a light rifle. Useless against armored stuff, could be a threat to unarmored units, and a hilarious surprise against BA. For stuff with explosive shells, I'd go with the medium rifle.

Basically, the weaker, the better. If a mech-only player looks at your record sheet and grudgingly admits you might be a threat, you did it wrong and need to downgrade.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 15 January 2019, 12:09:33
I'm wondering if the weapons should be statted as Protomech ACs or Recoiless Rifles rather than mech-scale weaponry.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 15 January 2019, 12:15:54
PACs are mech scale weapons?  In fact, some Clan mechs are built with them, and I think a few Omnis have them in configs.

And since L/M/H Recoilless Rifles do full damage to the armor . . . ?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 15 January 2019, 13:16:51
Well let's see. CSS Arkansas and many monitors of her class carried a number of guns. I'll pick the 9-inch Dahlgrens just because I like the little soda-bottle oddities.

A quick Google claims that 9-inch Dahlgrens penetrate ~55mm of iron at ~250 meters. We're not going to talk about the hundreds of variables involved in this factoid.

Another quick Google gives the British 2pdr 40mm and US 37mm approximately the same performance.

XTRO:1945 gives both these weapons the same performance: 4 damage against BAR 5, 5/26/52/78, and for playing outside of the XTRO, the TW analogue is the Medium Recoilless Rifle - the battle-armour weapon.

The BA MRR incidentally has a range of 0/2/4/6 aka 0/60m/120m/180m, so it's more or less there I guess. 3 damage against BAR 10.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 15 January 2019, 13:24:16
Two things:

First, when you invoke XTRO 1945, you're pretty much conceding the argument. You know as well as anyone else that the numbers in there are purely for fun, and have no relation to any performance of real-world technologies in the Battletech setting.

Second, you guys need to please open a new thread for this stuff, and leave the rest of us our pretty pretty warships.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 15 January 2019, 13:40:56
(shrug) it's the best we have, such as it is.

Rear view of a Stereguschiy class corvette. The Kh-35 "Harpoonskis" it carries are just barely visible between the mast and smokestack, positioned similar to how Harpoons are on Horizon-class frigates, with exhaust vents on the side of the ship.

This ship is the older subclass and carries Kashtan CIWS instead of the usual S-350 VLS SAMs.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1XDBWFBK/Stereguschy.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 15 January 2019, 18:41:36
You know there more diversity on smaller ships than large ones nowadays.  Most large combatants (as they call them now, since destroyer, frigates, dare i say cruiser messih together since most almost same arrangement weapons and even vls tubes launchers.) while the small combatants have more design variance i think.

Here the Taiwanese Missile Craft in their service since 2014, the Missile Corvette Tuo Jiang.

(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/f-taiwanship-a-20141225.jpg)

She more offensive, than defensive.  She has 2 sets of 8 anti-ship missiles (Subsonic & Supersonic Per set), 76mm cannons up front, anti-submarine torpedoes, and only air defense is it's Phalanx CIWS.    She seems to be relaying perhaps too much for her stealth features for defense vs having anti-aircraft missiles.  I suspect the admiralty was thinks it's anti-aircraft destroyers will be able cover the ships while in combat.  However, despite being the lead ship of planned 12 ship class, she remains only member still after fours years being commissioned.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 15 January 2019, 19:09:07
I suppose with smaller ships, each one's much less expensive than your typical major surface combatant, so you can afford to experiment a little and play with different things.  Compare the Tuo Jiang there with with the Norwegian Skjolds, for example.  Or those SEAL submersible stealth speedboats[url].

Plus, each of these tend to be limited in range to local areas, so you can craft things to specific sea profiles and not worry about 'but can it go around Cape Horn in sea state 8' for example. (https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/unmasking-the-columbia-rivers-mysterious-stealth-boats-1583093889)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 15 January 2019, 19:09:59
Cost issues.

She's supposed to carry SAMs in place of the second set of subsonic SSMs, but they haven't developed those.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 15 January 2019, 19:36:28
I was wondering if they canceled the development.  Its over 4 years old now.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 15 January 2019, 20:17:15
Probably hoping the AA destroyers attract all the attention, while these little tykes sneak around the side. Like the current Chinese fighters - only really worried about frontal aspect stealth, because that gets you (hopefully) into weapons range.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 15 January 2019, 21:52:21
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0d48ce29d3b25b51499e45157e7e168f-c)
Admiral Graf Spee

What type of ship is in the background? Freighter... Coast Guard?

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 15 January 2019, 22:00:23
Looks like a bulk carrier...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 15 January 2019, 22:10:11
I do have a beautiful pic of her from the rear view... but political pics are hard to show without retaliations...

History and all...

But:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-da4c434ee1960c115e0136ca23ef1317-c

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 16 January 2019, 03:08:12
One design that gets a lot of stick is the Nelson's.

(https://external-preview.redd.it/b7IOLxNthrH4m7tZIfoeYTHm_d8Gu9ppEV2MXguiz1s.jpg?auto=webp&s=f895ba90ac02105db4f832802b806a34eb4a53af)

(https://i.redd.it/jm1b1z0hlma21.jpg)

Obviously the Nelson class wasn't the G3 that many a naval fan always looks at with a wistful sigh.  And because the Nelsons are NOT the G3's they get looked down upon. But really the only difference between the two is the length and engine power (and of course the turret layout) the guns for the G3's would have been the same as the Nelsons, all the way down to their secondaries and AA fit and torps. The armour was very similar in terms of thickness and layout.  So folks should lay off the Nelsons, they were world class ships and for a good long time, were the most powerful ships afloat.

Also I had no idea the Ticho class cruiser's CiC was so large and laid out like this

(https://external-preview.redd.it/dCBtDhqXnCJTXH6u7kUuDUZUqdTGxB0jsy_3DDdLtbc.jpg?auto=webp&s=11b6ce2a51aac76447d35f6d7251728e80bb9462)

Quote
Crew members monitor radar screens in the combat information center aboard the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes (CG-49), 1 January 1988

It may be a mock up but it looks more like an airport control tower than a warship.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 16 January 2019, 03:24:41
(https://i.redd.it/cj2jjwhnnp921.png)

Nothing looks more French than this French Pre-dreadnought Battleship the Carnot.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 16 January 2019, 03:47:18
It may be a mock up but it looks more like an airport control tower than a warship.

Which makes sense in that it is effectively a mobile air traffic control tower where instead of trying to keep two metal tubes from occupying the same bit of airspace at the same time, the Ticos were all about making two metal tubes occupy the same bit of airspace at the same time  ^-^
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Deadborder on 16 January 2019, 04:01:29
(https://i.redd.it/cj2jjwhnnp921.png)

Nothing looks more French than this French Pre-dreadnought Battleship the Carnot.

That is so ridiculous it is amazing
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 16 January 2019, 04:08:08
That is so ridiculous it is amazing

That's French pre-dreadnoughts for you :D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 16 January 2019, 05:20:57
To be fair some of them managed to look quite spiffy for their time:

(https://abload.de/img/libertet3jqw.jpg)

Liberte, laid down 1902. 4x 305mm (two twin), 10x 194mm (six turrets + four casemates), 13x 65mm, 10x 47mm/3-pounder QF guns plus torpedoes. Exploded in 1911.

(https://abload.de/img/republiquebej8p.jpg)

Republique, laid down 1901. 4x 305mm (two twin), 18x 164mm (six turrets + six casemate), 25x 47mm/3-pounder QF guns plus torpedoes. Scrapped in 1921.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 16 January 2019, 09:41:50
Reminiscent of a Leviathans! In water.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 16 January 2019, 11:16:35
Marauder, one thing to remember for the Tico class's CIC you are going to get crowded.  What you are seeing- or they are letting the picture be taken of- is probably some low level exercise or ops near friendly territory.  When its show time, you are going to have officers hanging out behind the operators looking at the screens.  The TF screen commander is going to be on that ship and will be managing the screen from that CIC.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 16 January 2019, 11:19:26
Has the recent British documentary about a deployment aboard a Type 45 destroyer been shown on the other side of the Atlantic yet?


They had cameras in the CIC or Ops Room or whatever it is best called when the ship got buzzed by 17 Russian fighters in the Black Sea
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: grimlock1 on 16 January 2019, 12:01:54
Has the recent British documentary about a deployment aboard a Type 45 destroyer been shown on the other side of the Atlantic yet?


They had cameras in the CIC or Ops Room or whatever it is best called when the ship got buzzed by 17 Russian fighters in the Black Sea

There is also an art to photographing rooms.  My parents had a professional photographer come in when they were selling their house.  With some very subtle tweaks to furniture, clever lighting, the right lenses and specific angles, these photos added about 5 square to a small bathroom and maybe 15 or 20 square feet to a bedroom.

Caveat: I know they can't exactly move the furniture in the CIC.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 17 January 2019, 06:22:40
Marauder, one thing to remember for the Tico class's CIC you are going to get crowded.  What you are seeing- or they are letting the picture be taken of- is probably some low level exercise or ops near friendly territory.  When its show time, you are going to have officers hanging out behind the operators looking at the screens.  The TF screen commander is going to be on that ship and will be managing the screen from that CIC.

As an ORS, I'd be telling most of those officers to take a hike. But then again, RAN Ops Rooms don't work the same way as USN CICs do. We still have plenty of officers in our Ops room, but if I find them bugging my operators, they'd better back off right quick. My operators are professionals who've been using those consoles for years, the most console experienced officer will likely not have anywhere near as much time on console.

But now I just hide in the corner, in my own little kingdom and let the other guys deal with that. :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 17 January 2019, 07:47:46
This is amazing - the surveys done in the Black Sea


http://cma.soton.ac.uk/research/black-sea-map/2500-years-sea-faring-history-revealed-deep-black-sea/
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 17 January 2019, 11:49:04
As an ORS, I'd be telling most of those officers to take a hike. But then again, RAN Ops Rooms don't work the same way as USN CICs do. We still have plenty of officers in our Ops room, but if I find them bugging my operators, they'd better back off right quick. My operators are professionals who've been using those consoles for years, the most console experienced officer will likely not have anywhere near as much time on console.

But now I just hide in the corner, in my own little kingdom and let the other guys deal with that. :)

I understand that, and worked FDC . . . our senior NCO would stand on the ramp to keep officers from cramming in behind us, but sometimes it happened.  But part of that room, besides being photo'd to appear that way, IS so that NCOs & officers can stand behind.  Its also one of those things someone with experience can look at and assess in a blink- how good is the section?  how confident are the officers?  and how well does the team interact?  One of my FDOs only went into the track when it was live fire, and barely then.  Another, a born micro-managing REMF who got left behind with the newbies and injured (me) when everyone else went to Iraq was constantly trying to get in there to lurk . . . hated dealing with him, got so bad the battery CO (another injured) chewed him out over the radio about sitting in the tent and let us get it done.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 17 January 2019, 12:50:38
Shouldn't the officers have their own summary screens or board that pulls together the various bits of data from the different sensors and analysis specialists rather than just looking at a single sensor readout?


Unless they are technical experts the officers probably won't understand the granular details


On a different note, I was reading that the Gerald Ford class CVNs will be able to generate 25-33% more sorties from their air group due to improved efficiencies but I'm not sure of an even vague estimate of the number of sorties a Nimitz class CVN can generate


Anyone got any ideas?


I would ask about the Queen Elizabeth class but as it seems they will be carrying a wide variety of air groups from 12 to 40 odd F-35Bs that is rather a moot point
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 17 January 2019, 13:11:00
Sure, there should be a general plot board that updates from various stations.  But that will not keep some O that 'needs' to know the details from standing behind the enlisted manning the station.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Charlie 6 on 17 January 2019, 20:48:49
Sure, there should be a general plot board that updates from various stations.  But that will not keep some O that 'needs' to know the details from standing behind the enlisted manning the station.
Yeah, being legally responsible for things is inconvenient at times.  I'm certain the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse would have Incompentent/Nosey/Annoying Officer but the short titles worked better.  Tough luck, that. 

So, why don't we get back to pictures.  Here's the US Battle Line in '54.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 17 January 2019, 21:25:02
As my Air Force SNCOs used to say to me: "Sir, we do it the right way here in the Air Force, we send the officers off to fight the war, while the airmen and NCOs stay back here at the base." :P

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/USS_Saint_Paul_%28CA-73%29_provides_gunfire_support_off_South_Vietnam%2C_circa_in_October_1966_%2880-G-K-33437%29.jpg)

The USS Saint Paul (CA-73) fires her forward 8" guns in support of ground troops in Vietnam.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 18 January 2019, 10:00:02
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7d/0b/9a/7d0b9af202c65d1f5cd6fe11ec4e2dfa.jpg)

Turret 'Caesar' of the Tirpitz lets loose during gunnery trials.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 18 January 2019, 12:15:02
Yeah, being legally responsible for things is inconvenient at times.  I'm certain the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse would have Incompentent/Nosey/Annoying Officer but the short titles worked better.  Tough luck, that. 

Sorry did not mean to sound that negative . . . when I was lower enlisted, I LOVED live fire.  We were not 'responsible' enough to do anything, so we got to sit around the whole day.  I think for my first ones I did not even have to make my own Safety-T.  And yeah, I know the legally responsible . . . my unit has a story from the late 80s or early 90s when they were tube.  They shot a round off post . . .

But yeah, back to the pictures . . .

A ship name that comes up frequently in the USN list-

(https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.0ro1SRYzW7qW4eVZajlR7wHaFC&pid=Api)

USS Texas, this one is the 1892 battleship version . . . when she was retired the name was used next for another battleship that served in WWI and WWII, was the flagship of the Atlantic Fleet and carried Wilson to the peace summit ending WWI.  Next it was used for a CGN (39) in the 70s which was a victim of the end of the Cold War.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 18 January 2019, 12:17:32
With the third Gerald Ford class CVN being called Enterprise (let's hope she doesn't get mistaken for HMS Enterprise), is this going to start a swing back to "classic" names for US aircraft carriers or will they go back to presidents, admirals and the odd general?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 18 January 2019, 12:25:20
Enterprise is a bit special . . . I think they will keep up the Nimitz naming tradition, before that they did not have a real system for the carriers that really carried forward.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 18 January 2019, 12:31:28
Enterprise is a bit special . . . I think they will keep up the Nimitz naming tradition, before that they did not have a real system for the carriers that really carried forward.


and some of the "good ones" have gone to LHA/LHD/etc which any other country would call aircraft carriers anyway, I guess


Oh, I know it isn't a picture but a video link but this is a nice discussion of the revolutionary vessel Turbinia and also has some nice models featured of other ships. Lindybeige is also generally fab.


https://youtu.be/vrZ5IE-1GJ4 (https://youtu.be/vrZ5IE-1GJ4)


Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 18 January 2019, 18:24:41
Lindybeige is awesome in general, and that video is cool in particular!  :thumbsup:

As far as naming conventions, I hate to say it, but they're mostly rule 4 territory (looking at you, USS JOHN C. STENNIS, CVN-74)...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 18 January 2019, 18:53:32
I prefer the ones with a bit of historical significance:

USS Enterprise
USS Ranger
USS Hornet
USS Yorktown
USS Lexington
USS Ticonderoga
USS Kitty Hawk
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 18 January 2019, 19:13:55
So do most of us in the Navy...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Charlie 6 on 18 January 2019, 19:29:35
...as do we Marines.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 18 January 2019, 21:02:25
I'd suggest that military members would generally want names that sound good, inspirational or militaristic, which people's names generally aren't.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 18 January 2019, 21:05:41
I'm OK with people awarded medals for heroism, but politicians are a whole other (rule 4) matter.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 18 January 2019, 23:02:29
I am ok with heroic people from the country too, but even then just do the person's last name not the whole thing. Eg. USS Nimitz sounds much better than USS Lewis B. Puller.

I like HMAS Sheean (the first RAN ship named after a seaman, want to know more? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Sheean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Sheean)).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: GreyWolfActual on 18 January 2019, 23:10:21
The naming of ships after prominent figures, political or otherwise, is not a recent trend, however. When the Continental Navy was created and the first thirteen frigates were ordered by the Continental Congress, the majority of them were named after people.

Hancock
Raleigh
Randolph
Warren
Washington
Effingham
Montgomery
Trumbull
Providence
Virginia
Boston
Congress
Delaware
John Hancock (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/h/hancock-ii.html)
Sir Walter Raleigh/The capital of North Carolina (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/r/raleigh-i.html)*
Peyton Randolph (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/r/randolph-i.html)
Joseph Warren (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/w/warren-ii.html)
George Washington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Washington_(1776_frigate))
Thomas Howard, 3rd Earl of Effingham (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/e/effingham.html)
Richard Montgomery (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/montgomery-i.html)
Jonathan Trumbull (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/t/trumbull-ii.html)
The capital of Rhode Island (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/p/providence-ii.html)
The colony/state (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/v/virginia-i.html)
The city in MA (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/b/boston-ii.html)
The Second Continental Congress (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/c/congress-ii.html)
The river or colony (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/d/delaware-i.html)

*Disputed between sources. However, the Naval History and Heritage Command says its for the city so that's pretty definitive.

So of the first thirteen vessels ordered specifically for the new US Navy, seven or eight of them were named for people, of whom three were living politicians. As much as we many not like the "sound" of people we disagree with having ships named after them, it is as American of a tradition as this country itself.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 19 January 2019, 00:49:05
I hear the RN will no longer name ships after nobles in part to avoid this

QE and POW don't count apparently. But I'd give a pass to sovereigns too.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sharpnel on 19 January 2019, 03:02:44
I prefer the ones with a bit of historical significance:

USS Enterprise
USS Ranger
USS Hornet
USS Yorktown
USS Lexington
USS Ticonderoga
USS Kitty Hawk
Throw in Essex and Bon Homme Richard, as weel
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 19 January 2019, 03:07:37
Greece's most famous warship, the armoured cruiser Averof

(https://frm-wows-eu.wgcdn.co/wows_forum_eu/monthly_2018_04/averof-color.jpg.eb5664a1763a49040e9e59405a8f5b96.jpg)

(https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/aa-oo-pisa.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 19 January 2019, 04:26:03
No idea when this was taken

(https://i.imgur.com/MWDnEKn.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 19 January 2019, 05:15:33
From what I can see in the image, that appears to be USS George Washington (CVN-73) as there is a 73 on the side of the island.

USS George Washington (it would be much easier if it was just called USS Washington) went into drydock for mid-life refueling in 2017, so the image must be from before then.

JS Hyūga (DDH-181) was commissioned into service in 2009, so the image can be no older than 2009.

Wikipedia has another image of JS Hyūga and USS George Washington sailing in formation in 2013 after a joint exercise but the lighting and aircraft on deck are completely different.

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ruger on 19 January 2019, 07:11:17
Throw in Essex and Bon Homme Richard, as weel

My vote is for USS Saratoga and USS Valley Forge...and USS Wasp...

Of course, as was said, several of these names have been used on cruisers and amphibious ships in recent years, if not all of them...

Ruger
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 19 January 2019, 08:19:38
From what I can see in the image, that appears to be USS George Washington (CVN-73) as there is a 73 on the side of the island.

USS George Washington (it would be much easier if it was just called USS Washington) went into drydock for mid-life refueling in 2017, so the image must be from before then.

JS Hyūga (DDH-181) was commissioned into service in 2009, so the image can be no older than 2009.

Wikipedia has another image of JS Hyūga and USS George Washington sailing in formation in 2013 after a joint exercise but the lighting and aircraft on deck are completely different.

That's a pretty standard formation for an end of exercise photo, I'm guessing it may have been a RIMPAC, which would make it RIMPAC16, as that is the only one Hyūga has attended to the best of my knowledge.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 19 January 2019, 20:40:07
Great fleet shot
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 26 January 2019, 20:36:18
Work in progress, two Independence Class LCS in the Austal Shipyard.

(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/33324316512_30c2394e32_o.jpg)
USS Tulsa (LCS-16) launched on March 15, 2017 and unnamed ship. Not sure which ship is. I think it was Charleston (LCS-18).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 27 January 2019, 05:32:49
Man, the Independence class looks WEIRD from above! :D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Dragon Cat on 27 January 2019, 08:02:54
Man, the Independence class looks WEIRD from above! :D

Looks like a squished duck
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ruger on 27 January 2019, 10:56:13
Looks like a squished duck

Or just the head of the bird and its beak...

Ruger
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 27 January 2019, 13:02:58
Reminds me of Sam Eagle's head more than a duck's.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 27 January 2019, 17:19:58
My thought is "needle nose"
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Fat Guy on 28 January 2019, 12:34:09
(https://dougnyren.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/russia-submarine-on-beach.jpg?w=584)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 02 February 2019, 09:55:22
(https://i.imgur.com/Y4beyo8.jpg)

An Ise class Battleship under attack, the Ise and her sistership were converted into hybrid Battleship carriers by the simple expedient of pulling out their two rear turrets and building up an area to launch fighter seaplanes from on the back.  To compensate for the weight difference, they made the flight deck out of concrete.  Its not known if any of their aircraft were ever launched in a combat role.

(https://i.imgur.com/hM75bfO.jpg)

The Marine Nationale laughs at your ideas of stability and metacentric height! 

(https://i.imgur.com/jbfvZrk.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/LyygcVv.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/iIsTfC5.jpg)

Always loved the Pre 1900's French ships, they look like they belong in a Studio Ghibli movie and they did base a lot of their military equipment on French designs from the period.  Some of those pics do expand if you click on 'em for a better view :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 02 February 2019, 10:09:02
Always loved the Pre 1900's French ships, they look like they belong in a Studio Ghibli movie and they did base a lot of their military equipment on French designs from the period.
Miyazaki loves the look too.

http://halcyonrealms.com/illustration/hayao-miyazakis-daydream-note-artbook/

The images aren't that great, but you can see the joy of the interwar period easily.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 03 February 2019, 06:32:26
Ooh thats an amazing looking book!

And speaking of Steampunk

(https://i.imgur.com/sep0BSC.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/oIq3GOl.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 04 February 2019, 10:55:51
Sad evolution of sea travel, automated ships. (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190131-the-finnish-ferry-that-sails-itself)

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=50310)

No Need Captain, No need crew.  Just drives itself. Finnish Ferry Company is operating some now.

Accidents happen, but i still rather have humans driving humans on their own ship. It can't do economy any favors when no one has bloody job or knows how things are done outside of books. 
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 04 February 2019, 11:00:12
who takes responsibility for any errors?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DaveMac on 04 February 2019, 11:23:34
who takes responsibility for any errors?

The lawyers  ;)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 04 February 2019, 12:04:45
No, the lawyers do not take responsibility . . . but they are paid to find someone to take it.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 04 February 2019, 12:24:00
Sometimes i wonder if insurance scopes need squared down.  I can picture there be too high liability having humans on ships or even driving vehicles.  xp
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 04 February 2019, 16:22:59
(https://dougnyren.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/russia-submarine-on-beach.jpg?w=584)

Your just enjoying a nice day at the beach with your family and you get invaded.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 04 February 2019, 16:31:50
I sooooo want to make a Rule 4 breaching comment... sooooo much... perhaps you could try repelling the invasion with a charge by a light cavalry brigade?


Anyway, I've been listening to a fab podcast and thought you might appreciate it, it is about the Battle of Jutland


https://podtail.com/en/podcast/laughton-unit/-the-battle-of-jutland-31st-may-1st-june-1916-by-p/
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 05 February 2019, 10:16:05
Don't worry, they drop the spent reactor fuel on the other side of the bay (actual statement by Russian sailor, thought it was about a harbor bay where they were not actually supposed to swim).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 05 February 2019, 20:55:44
Where the Russian Cruisers go when they retire. The Murmansk.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/dc/0d/8c/dc0d8c4eb1a783a8fde4382530042b48.jpg)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f2/39/20/f239205485cde946349fd081bfa7295e.jpg)

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 05 February 2019, 21:11:41
That's a sad fate for a ship, even if it is Russian...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 05 February 2019, 21:16:28
If this picture is to believed, but apparently this was part of that very same ship or one by the same name.  I don't know if it's fake, its alleged to have been found in an abandoned Russian base.

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=50325)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: CrossfirePilot on 05 February 2019, 21:20:47
If this picture is to be, but apparently this was part of that very same ship or one by the same name.  I don't know if it's fake, its alleged to have been found in an abandoned Russian base.

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=50325)

That's what happens when you try the Philadelphia experiment in the North Sea.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 06 February 2019, 00:29:23
reverse image search just returns the same claim of it being a russian ship 'embedded' in a mountain with claims of weird science. mostly just pinterest posts referencing the abovetopsecret.com forum where said claim was made.


even though it is clear that it is not embedded at all, but rather just hung. making it most likely to be a monument or art installation.

edit: found it. it is a Liinakhamari Landing Memorial, dedicated to the seamen and naval infantry of the North Fleet who died in WW2.

http://www.osieturner.com/2018/05/the-battleship-in-mountain-real-or-fake.html
https://www.tracesofwar.com/sights/26151/Memorial-Soviet-Seamen-Liinakhamari.htm

the site is in the Murmansk oblast but is actually several hours from Murmansk itself.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 February 2019, 01:23:49
I wonder what ship they used for that bow.  It doesn't match any of the amphibious assault ships listed on Wikipedia, maybe it was from a troop transport or cargo ship?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 06 February 2019, 05:32:47
I wonder what ship they used for that bow.  It doesn't match any of the amphibious assault ships listed on Wikipedia, maybe it was from a troop transport or cargo ship?

They certainly weren't gentle about removing the bow, I'm guessing it was done at a breaker, that bulging fair lead over the bow indicates to me that it'd the bow of a cable layer...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 06 February 2019, 05:46:19
Not necessarily... the Soviets used to do their UNREPs bow to stern.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 06 February 2019, 05:54:44
(https://i.imgur.com/ZdbRcOx.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/2j189sY.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 06 February 2019, 07:04:33
For those who have a decent internet connection.

I stumbled onto these two part video by RT Documentary on the Russian Northern Fleet submarine force "Beast Division"

https://youtu.be/7L8pKSfJc88 (https://youtu.be/7L8pKSfJc88)

https://youtu.be/Dtq7cTBzsqk (https://youtu.be/Dtq7cTBzsqk)

An interesting look at the insides of Russian SSNs


Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 06 February 2019, 08:22:31
The Sea Shadow before she was scrapped, while in state of...mothballs?
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/09/article-2001303-0C79FE1200000578-296_634x415.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: grimlock1 on 06 February 2019, 10:27:03
The Sea Shadow before she was scrapped, while in state of...mothballs?
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/09/article-2001303-0C79FE1200000578-296_634x415.jpg)
Ben Rich's book has an interesting chapter relating to the Sea Shadow, and dealing with the Navy.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 06 February 2019, 10:46:07
What books that? And I loved the look of the Sea Shadow, a useful tesbed for sure.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 06 February 2019, 11:07:00
huh, whose ship was that?  I thought it was a Pop Mechanics wishlist and appeared in a Bond flick as the bad guy mcguffin.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 06 February 2019, 11:36:23
huh, whose ship was that?  I thought it was a Pop Mechanics wishlist and appeared in a Bond flick as the bad guy mcguffin.
It is an actual ship, US Navy stealth testbed, once hailed as the future of naval ship design

Which is why a lookalike appears in Tomorrow Never Dies*, where it sinks a Royal Navy Type 23 with an honest-to-goodness chainsaw torpedo, because Bond flicks just has to shoehorn in GI Joe ludicrosity alongside the legit cutting edge military tech

*the first ever movie I watched in a cinema, BTW. Exceedingly fond memories.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 06 February 2019, 11:46:30
Yeah, I never knew it actually got fully built . . . or had been scrapped.  But you can definitely see the influences in the LCS.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 06 February 2019, 13:35:04
Which is why a lookalike appears in Tomorrow Never Dies*, where it sinks a Royal Navy Type 23 with an honest-to-goodness chainsaw torpedo, because Bond flicks just has to shoehorn in GI Joe ludicrosity alongside the legit cutting edge military tech

Given the wacky stuff started appearing in Bond in the early 80s, I'd say it was GI Joe that copied Bond-film ludicrosity.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 06 February 2019, 13:45:57
Given the wacky stuff started appearing in Bond in the early 80s, I'd say it was GI Joe that copied Bond-film ludicrosity.

Pfffffffffft. Moonraker was based on a true story.  ;D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Euphonium on 06 February 2019, 15:25:26
Pfffffffffft. Moonraker was based on a true story.  ;D

The novel or the movie?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 February 2019, 16:45:51
Pfffffffffft. Moonraker was based on a true story.  ;D

Also on the topic of Sea Shadow, think of her as the Have Blue of warships - the thing that proved stealth worked for ships, and was (pun intended) a sea change in the way warships were designed.  Look at the design paradigm prior to her development in the late 1970s and construction in 1984, and how things evolved since then.  It also helped with wake reduction and other technologies beyond radar stealth, despite not being the primary purpose.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 06 February 2019, 17:07:29
Also on the topic of Sea Shadow, think of her as the Have Blue of warships - the thing that proved stealth worked for ships, and was (pun intended) a sea change in the way warships were designed.  Look at the design paradigm prior to her development in the late 1970s and construction in 1984, and how things evolved since then.  It also helped with wake reduction and other technologies beyond radar stealth, despite not being the primary purpose.
that was literally what she was. a proof of concept test model like have-blue. only unlike haveblue, it never got picked up for a full production model (due to reasons regarding internal navy attitudes that would run afoul of rule 4) though the principles it pioneered have found their way into most modern ships to various degrees.

as it turned out, Sea Shadow was a bit too stealthy.. it generated a return smaller than that of the noise from the waves on the surface, so a radar set properly would be able to find it as an empty point in the noise.

sadly the reason she got scrapped was because while the navy offered her to museums (for free!) to display, they appended a huge list of restrictions on said display (such as having to be displayed inside the [huge and ugly] barge she was stored in, limited photography, etc) to the point no one was interested, and the scrapping deadline passed.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 06 February 2019, 17:30:04
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/The_Surrender_of_the_German_High_Seas_Fleet%2C_November_1918_Q19296.jpg)

Monitor HMS Lord Clive and her unusual armament at the surrender of the German High Seas Fleet in late 1918. The  most notable feature is the single 18" gun aft, which is in a fixed-to-starboard mounting (it could be aimed to some extent fore and aft, but the actual gun shield was fixed to starboard). Forward are a pair of 12" guns in the turret, and visible below the bridge are 6" secondary guns.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 06 February 2019, 17:38:40
that was literally what she was. a proof of concept test model like have-blue. only unlike haveblue, it never got picked up for a full production model (due to reasons regarding internal navy attitudes that would run afoul of rule 4) though the principles it pioneered have found their way into most modern ships to various degrees.

It's doubtful an unarmed, 4-crew, 15-knot ship could contribute much to the Navy, stealth or no.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 06 February 2019, 17:52:34
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/The_Surrender_of_the_German_High_Seas_Fleet%2C_November_1918_Q19296.jpg)

Monitor HMS Lord Clive and her unusual armament at the surrender of the German High Seas Fleet in late 1918. The  most notable feature is the single 18" gun aft, which is in a fixed-to-starboard mounting (it could be aimed to some extent fore and aft, but the actual gun shield was fixed to starboard). Forward are a pair of 12" guns in the turret, and visible below the bridge are 6" secondary guns.

I wonder how much a displacement this thing would get when they fired that 18incher, the Iowas fired broadsides and physically moved the ship sideways little bit. 
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 06 February 2019, 19:09:49
as it turned out, Sea Shadow was a bit too stealthy.. it generated a return smaller than that of the noise from the waves on the surface, so a radar set properly would be able to find it as an empty point in the noise.
adline passed.

Ever worked on a radar console? I worked on one for more than 10 years, and I can tell you there's no way this can happen. If Sea Shadow was scrapped and this was the noted reason, they didn't want to tell you the real reasons.

It's doubtful an unarmed, 4-crew, 15-knot ship could contribute much to the Navy, stealth or no.

This, Sea Shadow was purely R&D, I'm going to guess that she didn't have a lot of space and weight capacity for weaponry, and was too slow for anything the USN really wanted her for. Not to mention that she was likely quite observable on sonar, which is much harder to hide from than radar.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 February 2019, 20:28:04
I'd also suggest that with her superstructure shape means she's going to dig that bow into a serious wave pretty damn hard.  Buoyancy will try to push it upwards, while the shape going through the water is going to push it down, and I can't imagine something slapped together as a rough prototype is built for that kind of impact and stress.  She'd turn into a stealth submarine pretty quick, I fear.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DaveMac on 07 February 2019, 04:16:05
I wonder how much a displacement this thing would get when they fired that 18incher, the Iowas fired broadsides and physically moved the ship sideways little bit.

These were the largest guns ever fitted to a warship with the exception of the 46 cm (18.1") guns for the Japanese Yamato class battleships. Only one was actually installed on HMS Furious and gun trials with it showed that the lightly-built ship could not handle the overpressures generated.  The gun was removed and Furious was converted to an aircraft carrier. The thrre guns produced  were then to be used in coastal defense batteries but instead they were put on monitors in fixed mountings. Two of these monitors saw service during World War I and one of these, HMS General Wolfe, engaged a railroad bridge at Snaeskerke, four miles (6.5 km) south of Ostende, Belgium, on 28th September 1918 at a range of 36,000 yards (32,920 m), the longest range at which a Royal Navy vessel has ever fired upon an enemy. General Wolfe fired a total of 81 rounds against enemy targets while Lord Clive fired an additional four rounds. The war ended before the third monitor, Prince Eugen, could be converted.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_18-40_mk1.php
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 07 February 2019, 05:08:33
How would they even coordinate an attack at that range then?  Did they just make plans to have the gun start firing at a designated time?  It seems like it would be hard to figure out if the gun were wildly off course.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 07 February 2019, 05:30:52
You only need one dude nearby with a radio (preferably in a plane) for correction of fire.  And being a railroad bridge, its range and direction are going to be pretty fixed as well as being quite large, so it won't be hard to hit.  Or considering 18" HE shells, hard to near-miss...

According to navweaps, shell weight for the 18"/40 was 3300 pounds, though they don't have a figure on how much HE filler there was.  Japanese 46cm HE shells used a 136 pound bursting charge, while the smaller American 16" guns was about 153 pounds.  I'd expect an "in between" figure of 145 pounds of HE filler being acceptable, for shore bombardment.  By comparison, a modern Mk 82 carries 192 pounds of (more advanced) filler, so you'd have a blast perhaps 2/3 the strength of a single 500 pounder - but that blast is pushing over a ton and a half of steel fragments from the shell itself.  #rekt
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 07 February 2019, 05:58:47
If my memory serves me correctly, back in WWI the wireless radio sets were not really small enough to be aircraft mountable (and your standard aircraft did not have much of a payload capacity or electricity generating capacity) and were not man-portable. The army generally used wired telephones to communicate between trenches and back to the rear areas.

Most artillery bombardments were co-ordinated by time and involved general bombardment of the target area. A number of allied attacks failed miserably and with heavy casualties when the co-ordination between the lifting of the artillery bombardment and the advance of the infantry broke down allowing the German troops to man their trenches and machine guns. Hopefully, Charlie 6 can come along and correct any errors in my memory.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 07 February 2019, 06:28:53
If my memory serves me correctly, back in WWI the wireless radio sets were not really small enough to be aircraft mountable
British, French and German artilllery spotter aircraft and night bombers had wireless radio transmitters in various forms by late 1916/early 1917, earlier on - since late 1914/early 1915 - typically transmitting with wireless telegraphs in morse code instead.

That was limited to those three though. Everyone else was virtually dead silent in the air.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 07 February 2019, 09:33:32
Good point with WWI technology - I was thinking of WWII, namely the monitors Erebus and Terror.  Reasons why I shouldn't post at 4am...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 07 February 2019, 09:39:44
Speaking of Radar, there the old USS Spinax SS-489. She was launched in 1946, and was converted to server as a Radar Picket Submarine in late 1940s.  She was experiment in seeing if Radar picket submarines would be useful, she was more extensively modified with half dozen submarines.

(https://ussnautilus.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/SSRSPIN.gif)

She by the 1960s was converted back to regular submarine and eventually retired & scrapped in 1972 when refits were not feasible.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 07 February 2019, 09:41:37
Speaking of Radar, there the old USS Spinax SS-489. She was launched in 1946, and was converted to server as a Radar Picket Submarine in late 1940s.  She was experiment in seeing if Radar picket submarines would be useful, she was more extensively modified with half dozen submarines.

(https://ussnautilus.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/SSRSPIN.gif)

She by the 1960s was converted back to regular submarine and eventually retired & scrapped in 1972 when refits were not feasible.

Geez, you'd hate a posting to that sub. Imagine a sub having to use radar?  :D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: grimlock1 on 07 February 2019, 09:59:50
What books that? And I loved the look of the Sea Shadow, a useful tesbed for sure.
Skunk Works (https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003) by Ben Rich and Leo Janos

as it turned out, Sea Shadow was a bit too stealthy.. it generated a return smaller than that of the noise from the waves on the surface, so a radar set properly would be able to find it as an empty point in the noise.

Even before I saw NightLord's comment, something smelled fishy about that.  By the time you scale it up, and add all the kibble associated with a serving warship, that problem would go away.

This, Sea Shadow was purely R&D, I'm going to guess that she didn't have a lot of space and weight capacity for weaponry, and was too slow for anything the USN really wanted her for. Not to mention that she was likely quite observable on sonar, which is much harder to hide from than radar.
The diesel engines were up in the main body, and the pontoons had electric motors.  Not saying that turns this thing into the Red October, but I have to imagine there are worse starting points.

I'd also suggest that with her superstructure shape means she's going to dig that bow into a serious wave pretty damn hard.  Buoyancy will try to push it upwards, while the shape going through the water is going to push it down, and I can't imagine something slapped together as a rough prototype is built for that kind of impact and stress.  She'd turn into a stealth submarine pretty quick, I fear.
Stealth shapes and ship shapes seem even more incompatible than stealth shapes and airplanes!  I've dug no deeper than wiki, but the Tumblehome hull of the Zumwalt has some stability issues.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: nerd on 07 February 2019, 13:23:58
Geez, you'd hate a posting to that sub. Imagine a sub having to use radar?  :D
She and her sisters were more of a replacement for the radar picket destroyers in World War II, that took a beating at Okinawa, by role. The idea was that if the planes were come straight at her, she could submerge and hide. Ned Beach's Triton (SSRN-586) was the ultimate expression of that idea, but the deployment of the E-1 Tracer and E-2A Hawkeye gave far better radar coverage in a better platform.

Also, a snorkel equipped Tench class submarine is closer to a surface torpedo boat that can dive rather than a true submarine.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 07 February 2019, 13:51:03
Taiwan, land of retired US Destroyers until the modern missile age.

1970s naval yard in Taiwan.
(http://global-mariner.com/1977-09-11.007.jpg)

Modernized Gearing Class ship, Liao Yang. (not related to house Liao's ruling family)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Taiwanese_destroyer_Liao_Yang_%28DDG-921%29_underway_1993.JPEG/1280px-Taiwanese_destroyer_Liao_Yang_%28DDG-921%29_underway_1993.JPEG)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 07 February 2019, 15:27:01
She and her sisters were more of a replacement for the radar picket destroyers in World War II, that took a beating at Okinawa, by role. The idea was that if the planes were come straight at her, she could submerge and hide. Ned Beach's Triton (SSRN-586) was the ultimate expression of that idea, but the deployment of the E-1 Tracer and E-2A Hawkeye gave far better radar coverage in a better platform.

Also, a snorkel equipped Tench class submarine is closer to a surface torpedo boat that can dive rather than a true submarine.

The radar pickets also played a role in terms of terminal guidance for early cruise missiles like the Mace and Regulus, that needed command direction.

But yes, the idea of the holes in the hull to tuck those dishes away ...

W.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 07 February 2019, 15:49:01
The first Japanese battleship lost in WWII, Hiei, has been found. As seems to always be the case, it's courtesy of the late Paul Allen's RV Petrel.

https://news.usni.org/2019/02/06/40942 (https://news.usni.org/2019/02/06/40942)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 07 February 2019, 16:34:12
I wonder how much of Ironbottom Sound is mapped by now, with the wrecks located.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: chanman on 07 February 2019, 20:10:56
The first Japanese battleship lost in WWII, Hiei, has been found. As seems to always be the case, it's courtesy of the late Paul Allen's RV Petrel.

https://news.usni.org/2019/02/06/40942 (https://news.usni.org/2019/02/06/40942)

Considering his many similarities to Bond Villains, are we sure he's actually dead? Did the funeral involve a burial at sea from his yacht with the minisub?  ;)

Joking aside, I'm happy to hear that his foundation is continuing its shipwreck search activities.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 07 February 2019, 22:21:13
I wonder how much of Ironbottom Sound is mapped by now, with the wrecks located.
Technically she wasn't sunk in Ironbottom Sound. She was crippled and was steaming away in the Slot until the US warplanes engaged her.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DaveMac on 08 February 2019, 04:09:08
Not completely accurate but gives a good idea of what wrecks are there

https://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/solomons/guadalcanal/maps/map-iron-bottom-sound-shipwrecks.html
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: nerd on 08 February 2019, 13:38:30
The radar pickets also played a role in terms of terminal guidance for early cruise missiles like the Mace and Regulus, that needed command direction.

But yes, the idea of the holes in the hull to tuck those dishes away ...

W.
Not as much as you'd think. Topside, Fleet Boats had a deck casing that's a free flood area. It's like a back yard deck where there's wood mounted with a gap. It's far enough up the gear could easily fold into the deck and not impact the pressure hull. The holes I'd be worried about would be the cable penetrations into the CIC. Small holes are enough to start big leaks under pressure.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 09 February 2019, 08:25:17
HMS Peterel was a river gunboat based in Shanghai, China.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7A83dq3Ozqs/UrBW1cmSD4I/AAAAAAAAA9M/5Qn5v8Pmb64/s1600/HMS+PETEREL.jpg)

Quote from: wikipedia
By December 1941 Shanghai (aside from the International Settlement and French Concession), had been occupied by Japan's land forces and there was a large buildup of Japanese naval forces in the area. At around 4:20am local time on 8 December 1941 news of the attack on Pearl Harbor, a few hours earlier, began filtering through to Shanghai. HMS Peterel was notified of the attack by Commander Kennedy from the British Consulate and the ship was called to battle stations.

Soon after the news of the attack on Pearl Harbor reached Shanghai, Japanese marines boarded the US Navy river gunboat, USS Wake. She surrendered without a shot being fired (the only US Navy ship to surrender during World War II). The Japanese later commissioned her into their navy as the Tatara and subsequently gave her to its puppet Reorganized National Government of China based in Nanjing.

Although Japan had not declared war on Great Britain, Japanese marines also boarded the Peterel to demand her surrender. Polkinghorn attempted to stall for time, in order for the demolition fuses to be lit and the code books to be passed down a special chute in order to be burned in the boiler room. When his attempts failed, Polkinghorn told them to "Get off my bloody ship!" The Japanese disembarked and almost immediately the Japanese cruiser Izumo, the accompanying gunboat Toba and Japanese shore batteries in the French Concession opened fire at almost point-blank range. Despite being outnumbered and hopelessly outgunned, the Royal Navy crew of HMS Peterel returned fire, using small arms and the deck-mounted Lewis machine guns (the breechblocks from her 3-inch guns having been removed and taken to the Royal Navy dockyard in Hong Kong). The Royal Navy crew inflicted several casualties on the Japanese before Peterel capsized and drifted from its mooring under heavy fire. The Japanese machine gunned both the surviving Royal Navy and locally recruited Chinese crewmen in the water.

Of the British crew of 22, 18 were on board Peterel at the time of the attack. Six of them were killed by the Japanese; they have no known graves and it is unclear whether their bodies were recovered from the water. 12 Royal Navy crew survived: some sought refuge on a neutral Panamanian-registered merchant vessel, the SS Marizion. In violation of international law, the Japanese boarded the ship and took the survivors prisoner. The number of casualties suffered by the locally recruited non-combatant Chinese crew and the fate of any survivors at the hands of the Japanese is unknown (under a directive ratified on 5 August 1937 by Emperor Hirohito, the Japanese removed the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners by its military).

The Royal Navy survivors from HMS Peterel (including Polkinghorn) were moved amongst the Hongchew, Kiang Wang and Woosung internment camps in China. Ongoing supplies received from the British Residents Association (Shanghai) and the International Red Cross were critical to the survival of those interned. On 9 May 1945 the inmates at Kiang Wang were moved to camps in Japan itself.

Three of the crew of HMS Peterel were onshore during the Japanese attack; two were captured but the third (PO Telegraphist James Cuming) remained at large in Shanghai for the duration of the war, working for a Sino-American spy ring. The Lonely Battle, an account of Cuming's tale, was written by Desmond Wettern in 1960.

Polkinghorn survived his three years and nine months in captivity. He was awarded a gallantry medal, the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC), for his actions in Shanghai. The citation (published in The London Gazette on 23 October 1945) reads: "For great courage, determination and tenacity in fighting his ship, HMS Peterel, when attacked by overwhelming Japanese forces at Shanghai on 8th December 1941".

USS Wake river gunboat that is mentioned

(https://uboat.net/media/allies/warships/am/pg_uss_wake.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 12 February 2019, 14:16:42
Well, the Hornet has been found by Petrel . . . it was found back in January . . . same group also just announced finding a Japanese battleship?

(https://fthmb.tqn.com/z_ClZufTBNa5w4X_TKr6vCbsELI=/1480x854/filters:fill(auto,1)/uss-hornet-cv-8-56a61b7a5f9b58b7d0dff2db.jpg)

And its resting place, looks like its on Mars!

(https://s.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/751/969/3/S7519693/slug/l/uss-hornet-discovery-photos-from-drone-1.jpg)


Anyone need a used tractor?

(https://s.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/751/969/7/S7519697/slug/l/uss-hornet-discovery-photos-from-drone-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 February 2019, 14:59:20
That sonar picture seems to show that she reached the ground backwards.  You can see the shadow of the conning tower on the starboard side of the ship, which means the bow is pointing "up" in that picture.  There's a buildup of seafloor material at the stern, and a clear trail through the seafloor at the bow.  Interesting situation, especially as she doesn't show any noticeable list.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: God and Davion on 12 February 2019, 15:29:57
Great news. It was a beautiful ship.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 13 February 2019, 03:58:10
That sonar picture seems to show that she reached the ground backwards.  You can see the shadow of the conning tower on the starboard side of the ship, which means the bow is pointing "up" in that picture.  There's a buildup of seafloor material at the stern, and a clear trail through the seafloor at the bow.  Interesting situation, especially as she doesn't show any noticeable list.

That trail is most likely caused by oceanic currents, no way a furrow dragged by a ship will remain observable after 70 years, the ocean floor is a far more dynamic environment than land.

Currents would also explain why there's a buildup around the stern, as the current would be slowed and deposit its silt there, when it worked its way around the ship.

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DaveMac on 13 February 2019, 04:22:28
Considering what she went through doesn't look in bad condition at all
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 13 February 2019, 11:05:20
That trail is most likely caused by oceanic currents, no way a furrow dragged by a ship will remain observable after 70 years, the ocean floor is a far more dynamic environment than land.

Currents would also explain why there's a buildup around the stern, as the current would be slowed and deposit its silt there, when it worked its way around the ship.

Yeah, I was trying to balance that observation with the sonar shadow being 'higher' at the stern.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 14 February 2019, 10:59:01
2 Type 55s fitting out

(http://n.sinaimg.cn/sinacn20100/746/w974h572/20190101/60f1-hqwsyta1851197.png)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 14 February 2019, 11:11:42
The painted flags make great aim points . . .
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 14 February 2019, 15:17:39
Seeing as its Valentines Day

(https://i.imgur.com/RSvup9a.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/I2iDltJ.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/gC8aL60.jpg)

I'm not appologising.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 14 February 2019, 15:40:33
Should use this . . .

(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.MJ0lyjZzHaqkYCvU_mpWXgHaE8&pid=Api)

Surprise, be my valentine!  ?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 15 February 2019, 06:19:27
News article on USS Hornet with some more images.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-15/sunken-wwii-aircraft-carrier-hornet-found-in-pacific/10817978 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-15/sunken-wwii-aircraft-carrier-hornet-found-in-pacific/10817978)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 15 February 2019, 13:44:00
That AA mount looks pretty fresh! And the cabling.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 15 February 2019, 13:51:04
yeah, why I remarked on that tractor . . . but when you are that deep and that cold . . .
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 17 February 2019, 09:15:26
I thought the ocean liked to eat wood over the years. That flight deck looks like in some good shape.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 17 February 2019, 09:33:36
I thought the ocean liked to eat wood over the years. That flight deck looks like in some good shape.
In warmer water. Generally shallower waters.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 17 February 2019, 13:50:37
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/63bad6b050a7e1bca57ed900ceac0ba1/tumblr_ol3840zlGA1tevf1do1_1280.png)

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/63e6672e4413dcf4db7c041006b4877c/tumblr_ol3840zlGA1tevf1do2_1280.png)

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/fac6bce354b59c487cba95caea3741b8/tumblr_ol3840zlGA1tevf1do3_500.jpg)


Quote
Canon de 27cm Mle 1870

Used in battleships and coast defenses c.1870~1918.
274mm caliber 216kg shells, 434m/s muzzle velocity giving it an estimated 300mm of penetration in wrought iron armor at combat range, breech-loading single shot.

Picture taken c.1885 by Gustave Bourgain onboard a Colbert-class French ironclad, below the center battery.

Note the boarding weapons on racks on the left side of the picture, including cutlasses and Lefaucheux Mle1858 revolvers. The Colbert-class ironclads were also armed with, beside a variety of other naval guns, more than a dozen Hotchkiss 37mm revolving cannons, four 356mm torpedo tubes and a ram.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 17 February 2019, 15:51:50
That must been alot noise going down there...has anything like those ships been used before they were obsoleted?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 17 February 2019, 16:01:26
The closest you'd get would be the Battle of Lissa which had Ironclads in it and the bombardment of Alexandria by the RN.

Oh and the various engagements off South America between Ironclads and steam warships.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 17 February 2019, 20:01:21
Oh yeah the meat of the Ironclad Age action after the American War of Secession was in around South America.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 17 February 2019, 20:39:51
Whish we had a TRO of possible Ironclad designs... or more water-based vessels to use in BT for our maps and such...

I mean a Monitor armed with twin LGR would be nice, or even a LB-X version... hell I'd settle for a SRT fast boat akin to the PT's of WWII other than the Sea Skimmer.

Something like a true naval battle with armed support ship construction.

I've played a few custom non-games where a Monitor vs. Monitor battle happened, we even modified them. I ran 3x SRM-6 /and a SRT-6 in place of a single 185 mm ChemJet Gun AC/20. Cool part was I won an argument that it was a Demolisher turret on top... which allowed me to just use any of the official Demolisher variants, as long as the tonnage was the same ( 28 + Ammo ).

> CSS Neuse, located in Kinston North Carolina, has a floating working replica of the Ironclad, Neuse II. For tours and such... <
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/CSS_Neuse_Rear_View.jpg/1024px-CSS_Neuse_Rear_View.jpg)

She's aged well... for being buried underwater for more than a century, raised in '63.

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: beachhead1985 on 18 February 2019, 00:17:10
Whish we had a TRO of possible Ironclad designs... or more water-based vessels to use in BT for our maps and such...

I mean a Monitor armed with twin LGR would be nice, or even a LB-X version... hell I'd settle for a SRT fast boat akin to the PT's of WWII other than the Sea Skimmer.

Something like a true naval battle with armed support ship construction.

I've played a few custom non-games where a Monitor vs. Monitor battle happened, we even modified them. I ran 3x SRM-6 /and a SRT-6 in place of a single 185 mm ChemJet Gun AC/20. Cool part was I won an argument that it was a Demolisher turret on top... which allowed me to just use any of the official Demolisher variants, as long as the tonnage was the same ( 28 + Ammo ).

> CSS Neuse, located in Kinston North Carolina, has a floating working replica of the Ironclad, Neuse II. For tours and such... <
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/CSS_Neuse_Rear_View.jpg/1024px-CSS_Neuse_Rear_View.jpg)

She's aged well... for being buried underwater for more than a century, raised in '63.

TT

I found just in the TRO Fluff you could do up a number of interesting variants; single AC/20, dual AC/10s, triple AC/5s
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 18 February 2019, 01:24:51
Oh I know... A4, that Gauss variant, MRM anyone?

Hell, I got away in a game with a Monitor IIC...  >:D 3-SRM-2s, twin LB-20's, twin cMPLs AND 6 cMGs!, Upped the armor to FF and dropped some to compensate for the MG ammo... even got CASE for it for free!  >:D

Ran a pair against some hovers and medium weight mechs on a mostly swampland...

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 18 February 2019, 01:39:34
Maybe discussions about custom Battletech units can be done on the appropriate fan creation section?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 18 February 2019, 02:18:02
True my bad...

Have a Cookieship!

Order up a Bro'dside!
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSI5k3LQjF35bGnAqCI8InlSMD9p4WGkqo0L2EQRabStnDAhPvhDA)

Pun intended...

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 18 February 2019, 04:36:23
Mate, you cannot have your cake and eat it too . . .

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/09/27/fd/0927fd0dc328c1325871a7302765e033.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 18 February 2019, 04:59:44
That's an adorable set of Minions but a shockingly bad ship
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 18 February 2019, 05:07:58
Is this better?

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/11B6F/production/_99095527_3dcakes.jpg)

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/1698F/production/_99095529_3dhmsqueenelizabeth30-small.jpg)

Want to know more? (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-42254895)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 18 February 2019, 08:30:21
I thought the ocean liked to eat wood over the years. That flight deck looks like in some good shape.

Not enough O2 in the water. The microbes that like wood struggle to gain a foothold when the water is cold and oxygen depleted.

If she was raised she'd rot away fairly swiftly, as that wood is infused with seawater, but being in the cold and dark, she's probably going to stay fairly clean for a while yet.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 18 February 2019, 08:51:33
The Mogador, this was a French Destroyer, which served during World War II.
She was lead ship of two ship series, other ship was Volta, where intended as escort / scouts for the Dunkerque-Class Battleships.
She was saw war service in 1939, where she was able to provide some escort for British forces.

She was damaged during the British's Operation Catapult, at the Battle of Mers-el-Kébir by a 15inch shell it to her stern.  The attack was intended to deny Germany use of the Vicky France's navy. She was luck to survive the hit, because it detonated the ship's depth charges.  She was repaired but later scuttled.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Mogador_03-07-1940_jpg.jpg/1200px-Mogador_03-07-1940_jpg.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 26 February 2019, 06:19:23
Big Charlie is out and about, off to tour the Far East

(https://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.570284.1551123868!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_900/image.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 26 February 2019, 08:59:31
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Dunkerque-1.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Dunkerque-206a4020.jpg)

(http://battleshiplist.com/battleships/france/dunkerque/images/017-battleship-dunkerque.jpg)

I've always had a soft spot for the Dunkirque class ships, and they are one of those 'what ifs' as they were never tested in real combat, being more the subjects of a target shoot than anything.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Euphonium on 26 February 2019, 12:58:57
I was fascinated by the idea of mounting guns in pairs within quad-turrets
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 26 February 2019, 13:01:43
I was fascinated by the idea of mounting guns in pairs within quad-turrets
Actually it was more about subdivising them with a central bulkhead so a hit to the turret wouldn't knocked out all of them.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 26 February 2019, 13:28:33
Actually it was more about subdivising them with a central bulkhead so a hit to the turret wouldn't knocked out all of them.


Except I guess a shot that disables a pair of guns would quite likely render the mechanism for turning the turret non functional so I am not sure it isn't a false economy.


At least they went with a theme and made a lot of the secondary armament quads too (or pairs of pairs).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 26 February 2019, 13:35:00
For the Quad 130mm/45 Mle 1932 (those three turrets to the stern) it was mostly about the loading system:

The turrets had one double hoist per gun (as in: it could present eight rounds to the four guns simultaneously - two types of ammunition for each gun) and the hoists and loading trays (automatic within the turret) were arranged in such a way that the hoist had to be to the side of the gun to properly load it - the guns had vertically sliding breeches. Each of the four hoist had a separate hydraulically powered arrangement that would tilt and rotate the ammunition to align it with a sideways loading tray for the gun. Hence why you needed space inbetween the two gun pairs. The job of the still-present loaders in the turret was to manually remove spent casings from the loading trays btw.

That autoloader design was "a bit" complicated and prone to failure and replaced by a new model with the Mle 1935 of the same turret, which was mounted on destroyers and designated anti-surface fire only (read: no need for loading at high elevation). In that one the two guns are still spaced apart since the new autoloader was a single central hoist between the guns - in the center of the turret ring - that pushed a four-round drum of ammo into the turret where it would rotate and tilt to align with the loading trays for the guns.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Øystein on 26 February 2019, 16:57:35
Live-stream of the salvage operation of the KNM Helge Ingstad - it should be completed in a couple of days. Barring any rapid turn of the weather.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iynqr4FaJK4
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 27 February 2019, 11:38:18
and speaking of naval guns, someone put a really interesting post here about Civil War guns and what they could do

https://imgur.com/gallery/jxpQFC7
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 27 February 2019, 12:02:05
Live-stream of the salvage operation of the KNM Helge Ingstad - it should be completed in a couple of days. Barring any rapid turn of the weather.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iynqr4FaJK4
Damn, the wonders of technology... what else are people going to livestream next?

so far so good

(https://i.postimg.cc/fRnHVWZ2/Capture.png)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: chanman on 27 February 2019, 16:52:40
Damn, the wonders of technology... what else are people going to livestream next?

Probably the ship getting into the collision in the first place
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Øystein on 27 February 2019, 17:35:49
They are going to move the vessel about 30km to another side of the area, since it's been forecast rougher weather on friday and they have to avoid bigger waves. So they'll spend a day or so carrying the ship like that to a better anchorage and complete the operation there.

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 27 February 2019, 18:38:17
I assume she is a write-off.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: chanman on 27 February 2019, 18:54:28
I assume she is a write-off.

They're going to need a lot of silica gel to dry that mother out
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 27 February 2019, 18:58:40
Just pack it in rice.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 27 February 2019, 21:41:32
I assume she is a write-off.
Considering she took flooding all the way into the engine room because of defective shaft seals, and that she's spent how long effectively completely submerged?  The corrosion visible on the outside of the hull is going to be endemic to everything inside.  If they don't send her to the breakers I'll be shocked.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 27 February 2019, 21:54:35
That's wicked expensive write off.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 28 February 2019, 04:28:52
That's wicked expensive write off.


I suspect it will still be cheaper to salvage what you can and stick it on a new build ship


The hulk may well be of use for damage control testing etc
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 28 February 2019, 04:32:46
What they can salvage anyway. With all the electronics and stuff exposed to seawater...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 28 February 2019, 08:21:01
I assume she is a write-off.

Might not be as safe an assumption as you think.

Warships are hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, and they are built in limited numbers unless you happen to be one of just three nations currently active. Replacing her would be uber expensive with new build because it would require change of an existing contract, or drafting of a new one. The drafting of the contract can frequently cost more than any individual platform, and drag out for years.

Never discount the national pride factor either, she will never be what she was, but they can make her a solid combat platform again, just takes time and money. The RAN effectively rebuilt HMAS Westralia after her fire, this was an old platform due to decommission within the next decade, but she was still repaired. The USN effectively rebuilt both USS Stark and USS Cole, and they were both badly damaged. The RN repaired HMS Nottingham after she grounded, albeit she didn't sink though.

Nations frequently repair apparent write-offs, so don't call her gone just yet.

Considering she took flooding all the way into the engine room because of defective shaft seals, and that she's spent how long effectively completely submerged?  The corrosion visible on the outside of the hull is going to be endemic to everything inside.  If they don't send her to the breakers I'll be shocked.

Rust isn't that big an issue, trust me. Warships are in a constant losing battle with corrosion, and while her's looks bad, it's actually not. Most of that is rust run, where the colour of the rust has run down or along the side of the ship. Noting the amount that is still protected by paint, which is obviously holding quite well, I'd say rust is the least of their concerns.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 28 February 2019, 09:00:06
I'm thinking more of what the corrosion over those months would have done to the interior things; she's been entirely submerged for almost four months.  All the electronics, wiring, non-hull stuff is what I was thinking is a write-off.  The hull damage probably isn't all that bad considering the impact wasn't that severe visually (compared to, say, the Fitzgerald) so that's probably in decent enough shape.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 28 February 2019, 09:24:39

they are built in limited numbers unless you happen to be one of just three nations currently active.

Oh come now, it's not that bad right?

Active shipbuilding nations: US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, italy, India, Japan, South Korea...?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 28 February 2019, 09:25:50
I wonder if the Fridtjof Nansen class is close enough to the Hobart class still being built to allow an extra order to be "tagged on" for hull construction while either re-using or sourcing new military systems (radar, sonar etc)?


There has to be some sort of advantage to using a relatively widely used ship type (the Navantia F100) and given the number of Arleigh Burke class being built Lockheed Martin should be able to send over some spares for the SPY-1


Or I guess the Norwegians could see if they could tag on an order for a Type 26 or an Arleigh Burke directly?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 28 February 2019, 13:45:43
given the number of Arleigh Burke class being built Lockheed Martin should be able to send over some spares for the SPY-1
The Fridtjof Nansen design uses the SPY-1F FARS, which is an export-only model with different electronics (and a smaller antenna). All older F100 use SPY-1D, all current F100 variants - Hobart class and F-105 - use SPY-1D(V) with new processors and different waveform. SPY-1D(V) is no longer built for US destroyers, all Flight III Arleigh Burkes receive SPY-6(V) instead.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Øystein on 28 February 2019, 13:53:44
All options are on the table with regards to a replacement.

Germans are aquiring the MKS 180 and some new F125s.
Brits are building Type 26s and working on Type 31s.
France/Italy are building FREMM.
The US are on their FFG(X) study.

But also increasing the lifetime of the Skjold-class corvettes is also on the table.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 28 February 2019, 14:01:11
MKS180 at currently projected 10,000 tons aren't really in the same class as the others mentioned.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 28 February 2019, 18:20:05
With the small budgets of some nations, rebuilding or a new ship is probaly the like the equlivent of a Ford Aircradt carrier for the US.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 28 February 2019, 18:56:23
Oh come now, it's not that bad right?

Active shipbuilding nations: US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, italy, India, Japan, South Korea...?

Add Australia to that list (officially we are in the shipbuilding "valley of death" between winding down after completion of the third and final Hobart-class destroyer and before we start building the Attack-Class subs and the Hunter-class frigates, however we have started construction of the Arafura-class OPVs)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Fat Guy on 28 February 2019, 20:21:22
A Russian cargo ship crashed into a bridge in South Korea today.

(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBUcSbs.img?h=423&w=564&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f)


The captain was drunk at the time.   :beer:



Russia never takes a day off from being Russia.   ::)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 28 February 2019, 20:57:47
Ask Gorky {Russian accent} : In Russia, drunk South Korean bridge crashes boat.

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 28 February 2019, 21:01:25
I like how the cars stopped for a couple seconds, then kept driving.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 28 February 2019, 21:17:48
That would be so weird your just minding your own business and look over while driving on a bridge and a boat crashes into the bridge.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 28 February 2019, 21:41:55
Russia never takes a day off from being Russia.   ::)
When Florida Man just isn't Florida enough.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: beachhead1985 on 01 March 2019, 00:42:22
That would be so weird your just minding your own business and look over while driving on a bridge and a boat crashes into the bridge.

GUYS!

We found the new M. Night Shamaylan twist!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 01 March 2019, 01:45:31
That would be so weird your just minding your own business and look over while driving on a bridge and a boat crashes into the bridge.
Ahh...you mean like this?

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=50847)

Stupid cars cutting in front of people.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 01 March 2019, 07:45:34
Oh come now, it's not that bad right?

Active shipbuilding nations: US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, italy, India, Japan, South Korea...?

And how many of those are producing more than 10 of any given class? Warships are built in limited numbers, with a specific class size agreed upon prior to commencement of preparations to construct. You can't just say "Spin us out a couple more can you?" The contract needs to be amended, or another contract signed, and that means the contracted ship builder can more or less name their price.

I wonder if the Fridtjof Nansen class is close enough to the Hobart class still being built to allow an extra order to be "tagged on" for hull construction while either re-using or sourcing new military systems (radar, sonar etc)?


There has to be some sort of advantage to using a relatively widely used ship type (the Navantia F100) and given the number of Arleigh Burke class being built Lockheed Martin should be able to send over some spares for the SPY-1


Or I guess the Norwegians could see if they could tag on an order for a Type 26 or an Arleigh Burke directly?

This depends, but the short answer is No. I'm not sure how much of what I know is considered commercial in confidence, will have to see if I can find it online. Essentially, there's something called FTA or Foreign Trade Agreement, it's when one nation agrees to provide certain military equipment or designs to another nation under certain stipulations, such as you don't export that equipment/design unless we say it's ok. Navantia and the Spanish government would be most displeased if Australia started offering export versions of their ship design, preferring that the design was bought from them.


Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 01 March 2019, 09:11:17
And how many of those are producing more than 10 of any given class? Warships are built in limited numbers, with a specific class size agreed upon prior to commencement of preparations to construct. You can't just say "Spin us out a couple more can you?" The contract needs to be amended, or another contract signed, and that means the contracted ship builder can more or less name their price.

Even 10 ships of one class is a lot these days. Hmm... US, China, Russia (debatably), Canada's Type 26 program (Halifax-class), Australia's Attack-class submarines... I think that's it. A few more programs in the ~8-ship range though.

I think it would not be too difficult to add more ships so long as there are 2 or 3 more ships in the queue - that gives time to arrange for more long-lead items on the end, though it will still play merry hell with everybody's schedules to get an extra ship out at any useful time. The additional design work and nation-specific equipment would be more of a hurdle.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 01 March 2019, 09:26:16
(Speculating Mode)
Isn't that the problem with modern warship production?  You need specialized craftmen, supplies of specialize components etc to suppose this beast?  More analog production shipyards kept hot because the ships weren't that sophisticated incomparison to modern warship.  Government shipyards maintained vessels, government development outfits had their own design outfits building say naval cannons.   

Missile age things start shift to private companies, but cost of the ships and other vehicles gone up. 
Isn't that why Burke Class has remained in production for such long time since, there no real room to experiment with new things without terrible cost, such as DDG-1000 program?  Half those ships systems aren't fully used since half it was made. 

Here the USS Marblehead CL-12 at launch in Philly in 1922. There wasn't much in hightech going on there!
(By the way, the ship was ordered in Jan 1919.  Now hundred years ago!
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/c11/c1113.jpg)

Here a Omaha Class Light Cruiser USS Raleigh (CL-7) in drydock in the 1920s.
(http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/cruisers/photos/raleigh_cl7/1920s_cl7.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 01 March 2019, 09:50:29
(Speculating Mode)
Isn't that the problem with modern warship production?  You need specialized craftmen, supplies of specialize components etc to suppose this beast?  More analog production shipyards kept hot because the ships weren't that sophisticated incomparison to modern warship.  Government shipyards maintained vessels, government development outfits had their own design outfits building say naval cannons.   

Missile age things start shift to private companies, but cost of the ships and other vehicles gone up. 
Isn't that why Burke Class has remained in production for such long time since, there no real room to experiment with new things without terrible cost, such as DDG-1000 program?  Half those ships systems aren't fully used since half it was made. 

Yes, things are way more sophisticated and expensive these days. That's just the nature of technology. A modern destroyer is lots more capable than older warships, it can probably win the Battle of Trafalgar all by itself.

Governments have been contracting military construction out for centuries. The "modern" system doesn't change anything.

The Burkes have remained in production because of the USN's strategies. Essentially in the USN, there is no "high-low mix" like there is with the USAF's F-15 and F-16. This might not be the best solution, but... the US military is so huge it's hard to see a rationale for a high-low mix. And it's hard politically, as the American public is unwilling to accept that some people are going to be risked more than others.

The DDG-1000 program suffered from the end of the Cold War and the uncertainties that followed. That's... the best way to characterise that I think.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 01 March 2019, 18:39:12
Even 10 ships of one class is a lot these days. Hmm... US, China, Russia (debatably), Canada's Type 26 program (Halifax-class), Australia's Attack-class submarines... I think that's it.
German K130 are being expanded to ten, steel has been cut on the next batch of five. There's of course the French-Italian FREMM programme with a planned layout of 20. Or the Italian PPA multi-outfit "light frigate" at 10 units planned. For submarines the Type 212 with 10 in the water will end up at around 18 units with current plans between Germany, Italy and Norway.

We'll get higher raw production numbers when the MCM vessels are up for replacement next decade. Benelux is in the market for a dozen, with a 3700t (!) multi-role design likely to win. Germany will order 11 in 2-3 years, with the only design decision so far being "considerably larger than what we have".
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: God and Davion on 01 March 2019, 18:51:10
(Speculating Mode)
Isn't that the problem with modern warship production?  You need specialized craftmen, supplies of specialize components etc to suppose this beast?  More analog production shipyards kept hot because the ships weren't that sophisticated incomparison to modern warship.  Government shipyards maintained vessels, government development outfits had their own design outfits building say naval cannons.   

Missile age things start shift to private companies, but cost of the ships and other vehicles gone up. 
Isn't that why Burke Class has remained in production for such long time since, there no real room to experiment with new things without terrible cost, such as DDG-1000 program?  Half those ships systems aren't fully used since half it was made. 

Here the USS Marblehead CL-12 at launch in Philly in 1922. There wasn't much in hightech going on there!
(By the way, the ship was ordered in Jan 1919.  Now hundred years ago!
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/c11/c1113.jpg)

Here a Omaha Class Light Cruiser USS Raleigh (CL-7) in drydock in the 1920s.
(http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/cruisers/photos/raleigh_cl7/1920s_cl7.jpg)

I'm sorry to rain in your parade, but the first picture is not the USS Marblehead from 1922. The bow is quite different and the hull has a lot of casemates and other details that don't belong to an Omaha Class. I guess it is an older cruiser. Here is a pic from 1923 and they are very, very different.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/012/0401215.jpg

Despite the mistake, the picture is very nice.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 01 March 2019, 19:31:14
The single bow torpedo tube and the design of anchoring systems combined with the low deck are somewhat irksome. Both point at something like the early 1890s.

My guess would be C-9 Montgomery or one of her class.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 01 March 2019, 19:58:04
I am not a squid or ex-squid, so I will happily be corrected if I am wrong.

The jack being flown on the jackstaff at the bow of the ship in question does not appear to be the USN Jack for the period 1919-1922. During the period 4 July, 1912 until 3 July, 1959, the USN Jack (with 48 stars) looked like this:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/US_Naval_Jack_48_stars.svg)

The Jack looks more like the USN Jack (with 32 stars) which was flown between 4 July, 1858 and 3 July, 1859 which looks like this:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/US_Naval_Jack_37_stars.svg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 March 2019, 20:00:11
I'm pretty sure they weren't building ships like that prior to the civil war...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: chanman on 01 March 2019, 20:37:28
The single bow torpedo tube and the design of anchoring systems combined with the low deck are somewhat irksome. Both point at something like the early 1890s.

My guess would be C-9 Montgomery or one of her class.

I'm pretty sure you're right on the money regarding the class, but we probably are looking at a picture of the USS Marblehead... C-11 USS Marblehead. Laid down 1890, commissioned 1894, decommissioned 1919. Third ship of the Montgomery class. The portholes and casemates look like they match.

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-00001/NH-266.html (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-00001/NH-266.html)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 01 March 2019, 20:54:10
I'm pretty sure they weren't building ships like that prior to the civil war...

I do not disagree with you there but the USN Jack (with 44 stars) used in during the period 4 July, 1891 – 3 July, 1896 has four shorter rows of seven stars in the middle of the jack:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/US_Naval_Jack_44_stars.svg)

And the jack flying from the jackstaff appears to only have three rows of seven stars in the middle of the jack  :-\
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 March 2019, 21:07:08
Wikipedia identifies THREE ships named USS MARBLEHEAD.  The most likely suspect is:
"USS Marblehead (C-11), launched in 1892, was a Montgomery-class cruiser. She served in the Spanish–American War and was sold in 1921"

I'm going with the wind not cooperating with the camera regarding that Jack...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 01 March 2019, 21:26:47
Quite possible a trickery of old photography or as it is a shipyard they could just be using an old, out of date jack . . .
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 March 2019, 22:01:35
That's a definite possibility too...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 01 March 2019, 22:25:50
It that is the case, then it is probably more likely it is USS Marblehead (C-11), laid down in 1890 and launched in 1892 than for it to be the USS Marblehead from 1922.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 02 March 2019, 00:06:05
Sorry for the mix up, i should suspected it the issue when i saw the bow.  Also the shipyard was dirt!  xp
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 02 March 2019, 04:51:00
German K130 are being expanded to ten, steel has been cut on the next batch of five. There's of course the French-Italian FREMM programme with a planned layout of 20. Or the Italian PPA multi-outfit "light frigate" at 10 units planned. For submarines the Type 212 with 10 in the water will end up at around 18 units with current plans between Germany, Italy and Norway.

We'll get higher raw production numbers when the MCM vessels are up for replacement next decade. Benelux is in the market for a dozen, with a 3700t (!) multi-role design likely to win. Germany will order 11 in 2-3 years, with the only design decision so far being "considerably larger than what we have".
Didn't know about the PPA and K130s, I split up joint procurement.

"Considerably larger than we expected" seems to be the remarks for a lot of European ship programs coming out.

BTW, got any good info links for the F126 Saxony class?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 02 March 2019, 06:47:01
BTW, got any good info links for the F126 Saxony class?
You mean MKS180? That's still what it runs under officially ;)

Other than the latest cost estimate in September pushing it to 1.5 billion USD per ship... not much. Design requirements are basically identical to F125 with doubled flexdecks (with modules including ASW and MCM) and added AAW at minimum Layer 2 (ESSM Block 2) as well as a ton of growth potential in outfit (which F125 doesn't have, it's at its limit designwise from the start).

Since it's a design-to-cost project we basically only have the government's requirement set and the cost limit, and the companies can do with it what they want. It's by now basically a runoff between two consortiums, GNYK/TKMS and Damen/B+V, to build it.

Some design decisions are being taken outside the project itself, for example industry cooperation agreed upon with Norway as part of a submarine deal included the future standard surface-attack missile that will be mounted on MKS180 - basically an upgraded NSM derivative that will integrate German requirements on navigation and ECCM and have a range of minimum 300 km.

Sachsen/Saxony is the name of the F124 class btw, so MKS180 will not have that name.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 02 March 2019, 11:18:04
Speaking of a different F-126, exHMS Plymouth.  Rothesay-Class Frigate.

She was built in the 1950s, where she and her other 12 sister ships served around world during the Cold War era.
Her most notable action was during the Falklands War in 1982.

(http://pravda-team.ru/eng/image/photo/2/3/9/72239.jpeg)

Despite being decommissioned in 1988 and preserved for number of decades, her trust to keep her from scrap yard rand out and unfortunate was scrapped in 2014.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 02 March 2019, 16:46:09
TIL just how special the Special K is, on the inside as well as on the outside

(https://i.postimg.cc/HL4GxnKF/image.jpg)

You mean MKS180? That's still what it runs under officially ;)

Other than the latest cost estimate in September pushing it to 1.5 billion USD per ship... not much. Design requirements are basically identical to F125 with doubled flexdecks (with modules including ASW and MCM) and added AAW at minimum Layer 2 (ESSM Block 2) as well as a ton of growth potential in outfit (which F125 doesn't have, it's at its limit designwise from the start).

Since it's a design-to-cost project we basically only have the government's requirement set and the cost limit, and the companies can do with it what they want. It's by now basically a runoff between two consortiums, GNYK/TKMS and Damen/B+V, to build it.

Some design decisions are being taken outside the project itself, for example industry cooperation agreed upon with Norway as part of a submarine deal included the future standard surface-attack missile that will be mounted on MKS180 - basically an upgraded NSM derivative that will integrate German requirements on navigation and ECCM and have a range of minimum 300 km.

Sachsen/Saxony is the name of the F124 class btw, so MKS180 will not have that name.
Ah okay. So no winning design chosen yet?

NSMs? not RBS-15?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 02 March 2019, 17:26:27
Ah okay. So no winning design chosen yet?
Nope. They're expected to ask for final offers from bidders sometime around now.
NSMs? not RBS-15?
RBS-15 Mk4 apparently never went anywhere useful with Saab, so as part of the recent submarine deal (joint procurement of Type 212CD by Germany and Norway) they agreed as georeturn to buy a NSM derivative from Kongsberg; that one is now planned to be deployed on MKS180, F125 and F124 classes while the K130 will keep their RBS-15 Mk3 - got a stock of that with some shelf life after all. It'll be a derivative since vanilla NSM doesn't fit some of the German requirements (mostly navigation and attack patterns, that's more of a software issue) and because we want a range envelope that at least matches RBS-15 Mk3.

NSM has the benefit of technically being adaptable to helo launch as well, and the industry cooperation for the derivative includes development of a sublaunched version.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 02 March 2019, 18:08:13
Kidd, makes you wonder just how flammable all that crap in the engine room is, and how small a mistake she is from an inferno...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 02 March 2019, 18:19:04
Net, it is all nonflammable, we use the good genuine asbestos from Sverdlovsk Oblast. We also take safety seriously, see we have safety rails. ???
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 02 March 2019, 18:52:58
Kidd, makes you wonder just how flammable all that crap in the engine room is, and how small a mistake she is from an inferno...
In Soviet Russia, ship sets you on fire!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 02 March 2019, 19:29:15
Net, it is all nonflammable, we use the good genuine asbestos from Sverdlovsk Oblast. We also take safety seriously, see we have safety rails. ???


In Soviet Russia, ship sets you on fire!


You not need worry about smoke inhalation kill you, asbestos kill you instead
Is good da?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 02 March 2019, 19:44:28
On a serious note, when i was in service we once got the special job of having to remove asbestos parts (insulation of exhaust pipes) from a series of mobile boilers. As in three dozen of them. Took a couple days. Another time we had to sort tents by production year... because everything before June 1962 would have to be removed due to PCB.

Gloves and mask on. Didn't bother to fully suit up, that was in the middle of summer. The not so fun part of being in NBC Defense. And yes, that was during this century.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 02 March 2019, 20:58:51
Yep, here in the facilities management industry we are still dealing with the asbestos legacy . . . everything from loose fill asbestos insulation blown into ceiling cavities (it seemed like a great idea at the time), asbestos lagging around heating/cooling pipework, asbestos filled fire doors, to asbestos cement comms pits, to asbestos in vinyl/linoleum flooring and the glue used in flooring, to asbestos in window putty/sealant, . . . the list just seems to be endless and in my organisation we have probably another 10-20 years work before it is mostly gone from our facilities.

Anyway back to boats:

When I served at RAAF Base Williamtown, this sign was at Fern Bay on the road back to the city of Newcastle:

(http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200706/r150720_536291.jpg)

A few years later the bulk carrier Pasha Bulker ran aground at Nobby's Beach Newcastle during a storm:

(https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2356/2211458522_caebd943ce_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 02 March 2019, 21:38:12
Reminds me of when the bulk carrier New Carissa ran aground near Coos Bay, Oregon in 1999.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Carissawhole.png/220px-Carissawhole.png)

Then it broke apart.  The bow was towed out to sea (twice, the line broke the first time), and the fuel in the stern was burned off.  A decade later the stern was dismantled.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Carissaburns.PNG/220px-Carissaburns.PNG)

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 02 March 2019, 21:47:15
The grounded ship reminds me of thing that i happened to witness.  I was in the US Navy in early 90s, my ship was redirected to Straits near i think Thailand, where two freighters had collided.  It was bad, someone died. they brought his body on.  one the cargo ships was cut in half was sinking, while other half was still afloat.

I did take pictures with my old school film camera, have no clue what happened to them.  Its was sobering stuff to see at barely 20 years old see people die in collision like that.  I was bit fascinated part of the ship was still afloat. I think it was the bow.  Stern has sunk of one of the ships.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 03 March 2019, 03:50:11
(https://www.history.com/.image/t_share/MTU3ODc4Njg0NTgzNzk4MDg5/image-placeholder-title.jpg)

(https://www.cruiselinehistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Screen-Shot-2016-10-20-at-4.03.02-PM-768x581.png)

That's the bow of the MS Stockholme after she rammed the Andrea Doria.  In reality it was a miracle that so few lives were lost when the Andrea Doria went down.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 03 March 2019, 04:12:58
"Funniest" story I've heard about ships coming apart was a Russian (of course...) freighter about 15 years ago. She was stopped from leaving a Swedish port after IIRC reports that she was leaking fuel oil.

When she was inspected they found that the hull was essentially cracked in two. The bulkheads was all that was keeping the ship in one piece! Needless to say the ship never got to sail anywhere again! :D

About Stockholm, my father took working passage aboard her to the US. And checking Wikipedia she's still in service as a cruise ship!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 03 March 2019, 04:18:57
The grounded ship reminds me of thing that i happened to witness.  I was in the US Navy in early 90s, my ship was redirected to Straits near i think Thailand, where two freighters had collided.  It was bad, someone died. they brought his body on.  one the cargo ships was cut in half was sinking, while other half was still afloat.

I did take pictures with my old school film camera, have no clue what happened to them.  Its was sobering stuff to see at barely 20 years old see people die in collision like that.  I was bit fascinated part of the ship was still afloat. I think it was the bow.  Stern has sunk of one of the ships.

That would probably be the Malacca Strait, it's the worlds busiest waterway. When we move through there we tend to go at breakneck speed, to minimise the chance of getting hit. :P

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 03 March 2019, 05:39:41
Gloves and mask on. Didn't bother to fully suit up, that was in the middle of summer. The not so fun part of being in NBC Defense. And yes, that was during this century.
It's not just ships.  Bovington's got at least one tank (Japanese IIRC, it was in a recent Tank Chat) that's chemically sealed shut because it's full of that stuff; it's on display but they won't even open it for pictures in a controlled environment.  Nasty stuff.

Anyway, back to ships.  There's a new expedition to research RMS Titanic in June, focused on scanning and modeling the debris field as well as what they can get of the bow and stern.  Recent discoveries have determined that there's an iron-consuming bacteria taking the thing down much faster than expected, and it's expected to completely collapse in the next twenty to thirty years.  That's not counting the damage from submarines landing on or colliding with the wreck, several of which have done visible damage.  Most notably, the crows' nest Frederick Fleet made his famous call from, is gone now.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Øystein on 03 March 2019, 08:51:27
The Ingstad has been lifted onto the barge and is now being towed to it's home base of Håkonsvern.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 03 March 2019, 09:56:50
Is the Ingstad a write off or is it going to be repaired.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Øystein on 03 March 2019, 10:39:44
Not been decided yet, but I think since it took so long to get it up (it collided back in november) that the sea damage is so extensive that she might be written off - maybe used as parts or target practice.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 03 March 2019, 10:51:25
Maybe they can join the joint Dutch-Belgium airwarfare frigate project to replace their frigate. (https://mobile.navaltoday.com/2019/02/28/thales-to-develop-air-warfare-mission-suite-for-new-dutch-belgian-frigates/)

(https://navaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/thales-to-develop-air-warfare-mission-suite-for-new-dutch-belgian-frigates-1024x484.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Øystein on 03 March 2019, 10:57:28
We'll see. the problem with buying a one-of-a-kind type is the lack of interoperability between vessels when it comes to parts etc.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 03 March 2019, 11:10:16
I shudder to think what this little bump has done to Norway's defence budget, procurement and force generation cycles...

Anyway... French shore battery at the Port of Valletta, Malta, fires at 1 of Nelson's blockading ships, 1800 (colourised)

(https://i.postimg.cc/3rtkzg9z/K4sRZQm.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 03 March 2019, 23:46:28
I believe a Carl Gustaf return fire could react to that faster than the chainball from yonder fort...

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sharpnel on 04 March 2019, 02:44:02
I shudder to think what this little bump has done to Norway's defence budget, procurement and force generation cycles...

Anyway... French shore battery at the Port of Valletta, Malta, fires at 1 of Nelson's blockading ships, 1800 (colourised)

(https://i.postimg.cc/3rtkzg9z/K4sRZQm.jpg)
I'd hate to see what 32pdr would do to a modern aluminum vessel
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 04 March 2019, 02:50:29
I'd hate to see what 32pdr would do to a modern aluminum vessel
At minimum it would leave one heck of a dent
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 04 March 2019, 05:02:38
Two holes - one on the way in and one on the way out the other side.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 04 March 2019, 05:10:05
Needs more Warships. 

here have German Battlecruisers

the SMS Molkte

(http://www.sms-navy.com/bc/SMS_Moltke-stbd1.jpg)

And possibly the prettiest class of ship made in WW1 alongside the original pre-refit Queen Elizabeths and Tiger, the Derrflinger class Battlecruiser

(https://i.redd.it/9vo1ilv3999z.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 04 March 2019, 05:28:34
That is nice, very modern looking

I believe a Carl Gustaf return fire could react to that faster than the chainball from yonder fort...

If only because you don't have to swab out the Goose and wait for the powder monkey to stick in the charge before loading and tamping, yeah...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: CrossfirePilot on 10 March 2019, 18:02:44
A good yet sad rundown on the USS Texas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eoJCs3_Q9g
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 10 March 2019, 23:15:05
If only because you don't have to swab out the Goose and wait for the powder monkey to stick in the charge before loading and tamping, yeah...

Why swab out the Goose? It's already a superhero...
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/2YIAAOSwG49cP36d/s-l1600.jpg (https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/2YIAAOSwG49cP36d/s-l1600.jpg)

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 11 March 2019, 07:18:02
Photo op of Charles de Gaulle from last week

There are 30 Rafale-Ms, 2 E-2C Hawkeyes, and 2 Eurocopter Dauphins on deck (presumably 1 more chopper taking the shots)

(https://actuailes.fr/kcfinder/upload/images/fce-porte-avion.JPG)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 11 March 2019, 07:58:32
That's a lovely picture :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 11 March 2019, 10:12:31
I keep wondering what keeps France from making their second carrier.
They are verge of doing it then something happens. 

I know economy is a factory, but its seems like their going no where with it.

Their last attempt was do a joint project that became Queen Elizabeth II Class CVs, as they would gotten the Third Ship.  It would have been conventional, better than nothing.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 11 March 2019, 10:57:51
Economy certainly, but I guess there's lots of political infighting everytime it comes up and in the end it gets shoved off onto some comittee so that everyone can forget about it (for a while). ::)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 11 March 2019, 12:54:32
They're now already funding studies for deciding how the successor to Charles de Gaulle - to be commissioned around 2030-2035 - will look like. Studies will finish in 2020.

Part of the studies that launched half a year ago is examining how many aircraft carriers will be required for French and European interests:

"Quant au nombre de porte-avions qui pourraient être construits, la ministre ne s’interdit rien. « Par ces études, nous pourrons déterminer, aussi, le nombre d’unités dont la France et l’Europe auront besoin à terme. Ne mettons pas la charrue avant les bœufs, le temps est à la conception, pas encore à déterminer combien de navires sont nécessaires », a-t-elle affirmé."

Source (http://www.opex360.com/2018/10/23/letude-sur-le-futur-porte-avions-de-la-marine-nationale-devra-repondre-a-trois-questions/)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 11 March 2019, 13:09:27
The French were supposed to have a 2nd Carrier and its also in their defense doctorate. But with the way over cost of the CDG it was push and then shelved. Europe is a tricky mess of economics and defense budgets.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 11 March 2019, 13:28:03
there are also rule 4 issues at play, such as the reduction in colonial holdings and the influence therein. between that and the end of the cold war there is generally less call for a large force projecting navy's, especially when it is rare for a country to not be part of a larger multinational effort when a conflict is occurring.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 11 March 2019, 16:30:02
As the Cold War was ending, they had money gather alot these girls for group photos, this was taken in 1991.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Principe-de-Asturias_Wasp_Forrestal_Invincible_1991_DN-ST-92-01129s.jpg)

From the top down, HMS Invincible, USS Forrestal CV-59, USS Wasp LHD-1, Spanish Aircraft Carrier Principe-de-Asturias.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Charlie 6 on 11 March 2019, 21:20:43
These are from back in '03 when US FIFTH FLEET had both East and West coast big deck amphibs.

The blurb from Wikipedia, "The amphibious assault ships of Commander, Task Force Fifty One (CTF-51) come together in an unprecedented formation during operations in the North Arabian Gulf. This marked the first time that six large deck amphibious ships from the East and West coasts have deployed together in one area of operation. Led by the flag ship USS Tarawa (LHA 1), the ships are (from left to right): USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6), USS Kearsarge (LHD 3), USS Bataan (LHD 5), USS Saipan (LHA 2), and USS Boxer (LHD 4). CTF-51 led Navy amphibious forces in the Arabian Gulf region during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 32 ships of CTF-51 composed the largest amphibious force assembled since the Inchon landing, during the Korean War."
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 11 March 2019, 21:30:31
That just warms my heart...  :smitten:
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Charlie 6 on 11 March 2019, 22:02:32
I try.

None of the small decks were pictured and ASHLAND was on a mail run to Bahrain during picture day.  Would have liked to have a broader shot of all 32 ships.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 12 March 2019, 07:21:34
That is a awesome photo of the Marine Ships.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 12 March 2019, 07:48:09
I keep wondering what keeps France from making their second carrier.

In a word, cost.

Brits faced the same decision the French did: 1 CVN, or 2 CVs? They took the opposite decision, because having 2 ships means at least 1 is available at any time.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Fat Guy on 12 March 2019, 10:23:06
That and the fact that France keeps a carrier in operation more for national prestige than any other reason.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 14 March 2019, 09:21:04
Add CV-7 Wasp to the list of found.  Two and a half miles down off Guadalcanal, discovered on the same trip that her sister Hornet was found as well.

https://news.usni.org/2019/03/13/wreckage-of-wwii-era-carrier-wasp-discovered
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ruger on 14 March 2019, 12:20:22
Add CV-7 Wasp to the list of found.  Two and a half miles down off Guadalcanal, discovered on the same trip that her sister Hornet was found as well.

https://news.usni.org/2019/03/13/wreckage-of-wwii-era-carrier-wasp-discovered

Erm, they weren't the same class, so not traditional sisters, unless you mean a sister aircraft carrier of the US navy...

Ruger
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 15 March 2019, 01:49:55
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 15 March 2019, 06:37:55
The Wasp was kinda of lightweight Yorktown class. Smaller to keep under the treaty limits.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 29 March 2019, 01:42:40
One of the guys at work put this one up.

Absolutely amazing shot.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 29 March 2019, 11:01:14
Hmm, I cannot see any uniform to really zoom in on . . .

But its not the Texas, that I do know . . . so its a late battleship?  Iowa or preceding class?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 29 March 2019, 12:34:34
I'm looking at the height and thinness of that tower ... could it be a Japanese ship, post-surrender?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Fat Guy on 29 March 2019, 12:41:56
That does look to be Japanese script on that sign near the bridge.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 29 March 2019, 12:48:29
a) This sort of photo does seem to be "a thing" in the period:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/USS_Michigan_%28Battleship_27%29.jpg/1280px-USS_Michigan_%28Battleship_27%29.jpg)

USS Michigan. Which makes the potential ID more likely to be a pre-WW2 US battleship with basket tower.

Here's the Dunkerque

(http://battleshiplist.com/battleships/france/dunkerque/images/007-battleship-dunkerque.jpg)

and the IJN Nagato

(https://i.imgur.com/MRA8TRI.png)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 29 March 2019, 13:06:27
The problem with identifying it is you have to guess what they are on . . . and the battleships were upgraded over their lives, and most pictures show their last WWII refit.

I found this, and it looks right EXCEPT . . . its Texas, and at the end of WWII they had the three pillars type tower.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/USS_Texas-2.jpg)

Mast matches up, and that 'script' could be some weird reflections on the upper (flag?  cannot remember) bridge.  Its also dated, b/c you can see a biplane set to take off on the B turret.  The duty uniforms are also dark like the black crackerjacks.  I found this photo from '32 where the New York was leading the line, so the towers had been changed by that time.  You can also see the uniforms are the white crackerjacks.  Funny enough, it looks like a flattop in the background.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5016/5449724008_a5c0401bfd_b.jpg)


Here is a 1919 photo-
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/united-states/ships/battleships/arkansas/bb-33-arkansas-battleship-bb-35-texas-right-gatun-locks-panama-canal-july-25-1919-us-naval-historical-center-nh-57682-01.png)


Got it . . . its the Pennsylvania class or one of the follow-ons, with a shot from the stern.  You can see how the rear mast matches up with the double cross-trees with cables running to the single cross tree on the fore mast.  The Pennsylvania specifically went to the Philly Naval Yard in '29 where they removed her lattice masts, so the picture is probably mid-20s and with how uniforms go . . . N Atlantic fleet?  Otherwise they would be wearing whites out at Hawaii.

(https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h63000/h63346.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 29 March 2019, 13:16:18
That certainly does look like it!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sharpnel on 29 March 2019, 13:21:49
One of the guys at work put this one up.

Absolutely amazing shot.
If the abov ship is USN then it s Pennsylvania class or later (not including Colorado or later classes) due it's two triple-gun turrets. The picture definitely has an interwar ook to it IMO.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 29 March 2019, 15:12:23
I found a site saying it's either Pennsylvania or Arizona.  I thought it was Arizona when I saw that pic,  but the Arizona crew pic I found looked more like the Michigan crew pic with the life ring.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 29 March 2019, 15:35:34
Couldn't resist taking this picture while attending Carriercon2019 on CV12.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 29 March 2019, 15:43:35
Which carrier?  The cape is funny, makes me think of the Jolly Rogs yet you have the Doolittle Raid bombers taking off.

Speaking of which, I am hitting my parent's storage this weekend.  I will have to see if I can find the newspaper we found when my grandmother died.  My mother and her sisters went through my grandparent's stuff, she was from a typical early 20th century farm family . . . youngest of 9 surviving children.  We found all sorts of things they had kept over the years that were interesting bits of history.  The one I remember was a newspaper that had been folded up and stored in a shoebox.  The paper discussed the success of the Doolittle raid and by how you can help make similar bombing sorties possible by walking instead of driving to save fuel!  Turn in your scrap and drive on old tired longer!  or something.  I think it had a stock picture of the carrier.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: God and Davion on 29 March 2019, 16:26:02
I found the picture in google and it claims that it is a Pennsylvania Class in 1918. There's one picture of the Arizona in the same style but the bridge looks different, with a huge clock  in the middle. My guess is that it is the USS Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 29 March 2019, 16:31:27
1918?  Then its a commissioning photo would be my guess.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 30 March 2019, 06:01:07
I have seen that big clock before on pictures of WW1 era ships. What was that for?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 30 March 2019, 06:19:25
I have seen that big clock before on pictures of WW1 era ships. What was that for?

Given that it was before the age of the wrist watch being common property, I'm guessing it's so ships company can be on time for watch change.

Brass voice tubes don't work very well above decks, so they need some other mechanism to note the time to sailors on the uppers.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 30 March 2019, 08:18:01
Azur Lane Hornet on board the USS Hornet.

Which carrier?  The cape is funny, makes me think of the Jolly Rogs yet you have the Doolittle Raid bombers taking off.

Speaking of which, I am hitting my parent's storage this weekend.  I will have to see if I can find the newspaper we found when my grandmother died.  My mother and her sisters went through my grandparent's stuff, she was from a typical early 20th century farm family . . . youngest of 9 surviving children.  We found all sorts of things they had kept over the years that were interesting bits of history.  The one I remember was a newspaper that had been folded up and stored in a shoebox.  The paper discussed the success of the Doolittle raid and by how you can help make similar bombing sorties possible by walking instead of driving to save fuel!  Turn in your scrap and drive on old tired longer!  or something.  I think it had a stock picture of the carrier.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: God and Davion on 30 March 2019, 08:44:12
Given that it was before the age of the wrist watch being common property, I'm guessing it's so ships company can be on time for watch change.

Brass voice tubes don't work very well above decks, so they need some other mechanism to note the time to sailors on the uppers.

It seems that it was very useful in the old days of battle lines. From reddit:

"Large dials resembling clock faces were added to the front of the fore mast, and to the rear of the main mast, trainable to 30 degrees off center. Once a ship found the range to the target, it would display the range on the dials, with one hand indicating thousands of yards + 10,000, and the other hundreds of yards. So if both hands were on the 1, the range to target was 11,100 yards. Hash marks, called bearing indicators, were painted on the main gun turrets, giving observers the angle to target. "

https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/3h1sdi/what_are_these_clocklike_dials_that_go_from_09_on/
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 30 March 2019, 08:49:13
Ahh, range indicator for the gun crews, nice!

I keep forgetting that remote controlled guns are a relatively modern development.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 03 April 2019, 19:27:15
Life onboard the new HMAS Brisbane (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-04/hmas-brisbane-australias-most-advanced-navy-warship/10969318)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 03 April 2019, 21:49:21
Nice write up the the Brisbane.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 03 April 2019, 23:13:47
Yep. I noticed that they had a photo of the single cabin (with a nicely turned down bed) but did not include a photo of the bunks.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 04 April 2019, 06:11:25
Yep. I noticed that they had a photo of the single cabin (with a nicely turned down bed) but did not include a photo of the bunks.

It's a PR piece, you don't want to turn people off.

I was talking to a couple of the Army guys I work with today, they asked what it was like living in a mess, I told them it was weird at first, but after a while you come to like it. It still feels a little strange to be sleeping in a queen sized bed.

I think the move to single occupancy cabins and small messes may backfire though, if you didn't hate it, you loved living in larger messes. The move was meant to stimulate retention of personnel, but I think it may just alienate those who truly enjoy that lifestyle, and isolate everyone else.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: grimlock1 on 04 April 2019, 08:46:51
It's a PR piece, you don't want to turn people off.

I was talking to a couple of the Army guys I work with today, they asked what it was like living in a mess, I told them it was weird at first, but after a while you come to like it. It still feels a little strange to be sleeping in a queen sized bed.

I think the move to single occupancy cabins and small messes may backfire though, if you didn't hate it, you loved living in larger messes. The move was meant to stimulate retention of personnel, but I think it may just alienate those who truly enjoy that lifestyle, and isolate everyone else.
Does "mess" mean a common sleeping area?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sharpnel on 04 April 2019, 10:04:40
The mess is where the crew eats.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: grimlock1 on 04 April 2019, 10:14:17
The mess is where the crew eats.
Nightlord talked about
I was talking to a couple of the Army guys I work with today, they asked what it was like living in a mess, I told them it was weird at first, but after a while you come to like it. It still feels a little strange to be sleeping in a queen sized bed.
So the eating area doubled as the berthing? I'm guessing there were a couple different facilities so you didn't have people eating lunch while the 3rd shift crew were trying to sleep.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 04 April 2019, 10:52:07
If you're short on tents you make do, I guess.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 04 April 2019, 12:00:48
We be needing more pictures.

Here the USS Joy Turner's sleeping quarters, which is sometimes referred to as cribs.
This very similar what i was sleeping in during my US Navy years in early 1990s.

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=51930)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 04 April 2019, 21:22:52
The Burkes have almost twice the crew the crew of the Brisbane for not much larger.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 05 April 2019, 03:55:10
Does "mess" mean a common sleeping area?

In short, yes. Although it's descended from the RN, and thus sleeping spaces, recreational spaces and eating spaces are all called messes on RAN vessels, because very early sailing vessels used the same space for all three purposes, cafe has taken over from mess for the eating space in the last 20 odd years.

Army and Air Force, on the other hand, call only the eating spaces messes, leads to some confusion whenever they arrive on board.

To add fuel to the mix, on a shore base our eating spaces are called the mess, recreation spaces are called breakout rooms, common areas or bars. Blocks of cabins are called accommodation blocks and cabins, I suppose it can be a little confusing to the uninitiated, but you get used to it. If there's one thing the RAN isn't, it's consistent!

The Burkes have almost twice the crew the crew of the Brisbane for not much larger.

European designs always put more room into the crew spaces, their design philosophy calls for more comfortable crew quarters. RAN units also tend to be minimum manned, so we end up with a relatively small crew for a ship that size. Many long years ago now, I was on a 2550 ton River Class DE that had a crew of 270, now that was tight quarters! Although the 3370 ton Perth Class DDG had it beat, with a crew of 330.

So yeah, crew sizes are a bit relative. :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 05 April 2019, 04:15:03
Zumwalt must be near palatial, then, 16,000 tons for only 147 crew.  Then again, dividing that crew into an officer herd and three watches means you're manning the entire ship, supposedly, with perhaps fifty people in total.  That's gotta play merry hell on crew stress...

...though it might not be a consideration that much longer, I guess.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 05 April 2019, 06:19:29
Zumwalt must be near palatial, then, 16,000 tons for only 147 crew.  Then again, dividing that crew into an officer herd and three watches means you're manning the entire ship, supposedly, with perhaps fifty people in total.  That's gotta play merry hell on crew stress...

...though it might not be a consideration that much longer, I guess.

The issue is that there is an irreducible amount of work that goes into running a warship, you need your bridge crew, engineering watchkeepers, Ops (CIC) crew, look outs, communicator, it's very difficult to run a ship with just 50 people, and a recipe for disaster. Mind you, we run the Anzacs with only 40 more, but many of those locations run a two watch system, rather than three. If you pare right back on those requirements, you could do it, but your people are going to exhaust very quickly.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 05 April 2019, 10:24:31
Ahh, range indicator for the gun crews, nice!

I keep forgetting that remote controlled guns are a relatively modern development.
If I recall correctly, that clock was for the benefit of the OTHER battleships in the line. When they were still planned to operate in a line for Battles.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 05 April 2019, 15:31:03
If I recall correctly, that clock was for the benefit of the OTHER battleships in the line. When they were still planned to operate in a line for Battles.

Bingo. One hand identified range to target, while the other was intended as a signaling system to other ships, at least in the Royal Navy (the Americans used range clocks as well, but had a different meaning to the hands, specifying range in thousand yard increments with one hand and hundreds with the other, so 8:40 meant the target was at either 8,400 or 18,400 yards, with fire control officers on the other ship being deemed smart enough to know the difference.) The turrets often showed markings as well, as seen below, helping identify which target the ship is aiming at in the enemy line.

(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c34de5c6cd40aa7b2ff4cd07008574c2)

For more: http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Range_Dial (http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Range_Dial)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 06 April 2019, 06:00:35
(https://external-preview.redd.it/sLsr0dYxaoefj_93F9emAmXFmp0Xw5FAhIfKSSmkzXs.jpg?auto=webp&s=60cd9ef8f313db86fde63f7d4f2385a333d6a3f0)

Those bulges made the monitors...well in a word 'thicc'.

(https://external-preview.redd.it/6ou1NUP5fYQxKRVvmfdoZppKVPO97BlwDk22fi6BxWU.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=25288444ea7a5457f8bc206a5dd303a21bf35919)

An Italian FREMM frigate the Carlo Bergamini

(https://external-preview.redd.it/M0yiknyfM7Itp14xrbYsLeWGuowKPA01a4iYgGOo--w.jpg?auto=webp&s=3b2f27ba8305ddcdbb7f58336cd5c0fb112c4abe)

An artists impression of the Dreadnought class SSBN, the replacement for the Vanguard's.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 06 April 2019, 12:28:08
Commemorative Zippo lighters from CV-12 Hornet
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 06 April 2019, 17:43:08
The Dreadnought has 12 Misslle tubes, vs the 16 in the Vanguard. The new Columbia SSBN will have only 16 vs the 24 in the Ohios.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 06 April 2019, 18:58:57
The Dreadnought has 12 Misslle tubes, vs the 16 in the Vanguard. The new Columbia SSBN will have only 16 vs the 24 in the Ohios.
the missiles are more accurate and can pack more MIRVs in though than when the Vanguards and Ohios were designed, so the reduction in number probably doesn't make much of a difference in strategic firepower. especially since the cold war MAD scenarios are at a lower ebb now and you don't need the same degree of extreme overkill.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 April 2019, 22:30:38
Any bets they'll work up a cruise-missile launcher to fit into the tubes, like the Ohio's Multiple-All-Up-Round Canisters?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: nerd on 07 April 2019, 03:57:40
Any bets they'll work up a cruise-missile launcher to fit into the tubes, like the Ohio's Multiple-All-Up-Round Canisters?
Fairly low. While the most recent batch of Virginia class boats does have missile tubes in the bow for the VLS, the work required to convert a SLBM tube to a SLCM MAC tube is extensive, and requires a fair amount of ballast to be installed.

Here at USS John Warner (SSN-785)'s commissioning, the forward muzzle hatch is open.

(https://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/150801-N-EO381-162.JPG)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 07 April 2019, 04:48:47
Any bets they'll work up a cruise-missile launcher to fit into the tubes, like the Ohio's Multiple-All-Up-Round Canisters?


After reading the Haynes manual to the Astute class SSN I found it interesting to read why they did not add dedicated cruise missile tubes and instead would launch cruise missiles from the 4 torpedo tubes:


1) submarine launched anti-ship missiles are less useful with the rise of better and better anti-missile systems so you don't necessarily want to carry so many
2) more holes in the pressure hull makes more points of weakness so they try to minimise the numbers
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: CrossfirePilot on 07 April 2019, 20:39:30
My dad is cleaning out some of his stuff and found a pic of this ship that he was sent to take a tour on when he was stationed out in Long Island in the mid 60s.  Funny thing was that he was a radar tech in the Air Force working on F101's and F102s.

(please forgive the sideways pic. I have resaved this thing several times with a 90 degree rotation added, but for some reason it keeps posting sideways)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 07 April 2019, 21:43:21
Looks like it was one of the radar warning ships.  You can find some crazy projects from the late 50s and early 60s in a effort to build a defense in depth with radar pickets to see further over the horizon from the continent.  They all died out as tech advanced to sats- orbit is a great observational point.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: CrossfirePilot on 07 April 2019, 22:11:00
I did a little research on it.  It was one of a dozen or so radar picket ships converted from old liberty ships.  They were actually under Airforce command and control due to they would be used to direct interception aircraft.  F101s, F102s, F106s, etc.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: grimlock1 on 08 April 2019, 10:17:21
Fairly low. While the most recent batch of Virginia class boats does have missile tubes in the bow for the VLS, the work required to convert a SLBM tube to a SLCM MAC tube is extensive, and requires a fair amount of ballast to be installed.

Here at USS John Warner (SSN-785)'s commissioning, the forward muzzle hatch is open.

(https://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/150801-N-EO381-162.JPG)
The work for a retrofit is considerable, but if they build the modularity in, it may not be so bad. I know "MAC" means Multiple All-up-round Canister, but what does the "all-up-round" part meant?  I'm guessing "round" means it's fitting in the round hole left by the missile, but the rest confuses me.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: nerd on 08 April 2019, 12:11:57
The work for a retrofit is considerable, but if they build the modularity in, it may not be so bad. I know "MAC" means Multiple All-up-round Canister, but what does the "all-up-round" part meant?  I'm guessing "round" means it's fitting in the round hole left by the missile, but the rest confuses me.
An All Up Round (AUR) is a containerized missile that just needs to be plugged into the ship's systems to be ready to launch. Everything (guidance system, electronics, flight control surfaces) is in a capsule and ready to go.

The SSGN conversions were to get the remaining useful life out of 4 large capital assets. The missile control centers were revamped, and the tube electronics were extensively changed; I don't know the exact differences, as I never went to the right school. Considering the conversions and work ups took about four years each, I doubt a "modular" design for conversion would be economical.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 08 April 2019, 13:53:02
An All Up Round (AUR) is a containerized missile that just needs to be plugged into the ship's systems to be ready to launch. Everything (guidance system, electronics, flight control surfaces) is in a capsule and ready to go.

So, Tomahawks with USB cables? ;)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 08 April 2019, 15:03:43
AND the right drivers already installed!  :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 08 April 2019, 15:43:07
Are the all up rounds for the Tomahawks different between what the SSGNs launch and what the VLS in the 688s use?  Or is that "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you" question?  ;)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: truetanker on 08 April 2019, 15:44:21
So no AOL, just WINxp... right?

TT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 08 April 2019, 15:47:28
AND the right drivers already installed!  :)

Shame they overwrote the DLLs for the nuc pot ...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 08 April 2019, 18:36:29
Since we were talking about future of the US Navy.

One of the candidates for the design, F-100 Class Aegis Frigates of the Spanish Armada.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/F104_Mendez_N%C3%BA%C3%B1ez.jpg)
Frigate Méndez Núñez.   

I think this is has the most potential, it's shame the Frigates will mandated to have 57mm cannon, which i think is lacking for shore-bombardment department.  VLS 32-Cells, really good thing. I do wonder if this is winner, will it have deep enough tubes for tomahawks.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 08 April 2019, 19:43:21
Everything forward of that first funnel stack makes me think someone left a Burke in the wash too long.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: nerd on 09 April 2019, 00:32:01
Are the all up rounds for the Tomahawks different between what the SSGNs launch and what the VLS in the 688s use?  Or is that "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you" question?  ;)
As far as I know, yes.

And comparing and AUR to a USB drive  :toofunny:

Since we were talking about future of the US Navy.

One of the candidates for the design, F-100 Class Aegis Frigates of the Spanish Armada.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/F104_Mendez_N%C3%BA%C3%B1ez.jpg)
Frigate Méndez Núñez.   

I think this is has the most potential, it's shame the Frigates will mandated to have 57mm cannon, which i think is lacking for shore-bombardment department.  VLS 32-Cells, really good thing. I do wonder if this is winner, will it have deep enough tubes for tomahawks.
I don't know why a USN version wouldn't have a full length VLS installed, other than as intentional crippleware. As for the design preference, I like the Patrol Frigate variant of the Legend class cutter.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 09 April 2019, 07:25:58
I don't know why a USN version wouldn't have a full length VLS installed, other than as intentional crippleware. As for the design preference, I like the Patrol Frigate variant of the Legend class cutter.
The Legends were built to commercial standards, which is one chief problem with that design.  The militarized version hasn't given much details, i'd image it's classified to quite extent. The Class had alot problems, structural issues which had to be straighten out, there was communication suite defects, but that stuff won't be in the Frigate variant their trying to pitch. The Frigate will be larger, but there still questions about how good it would be.  I think the Navy wants existing design that been thought it, verses a something only been used for police actions not blue water military operations such.    The militarized version (patrol frigate variant) of the Legend doesn't even exist but on paper.

On different vein, apparently Spain is replacing their old Santa Maria-Class (Oliver Perry variant) FFGs with looks like a lesser version of the F-100 Class Aegis Frigates, the F-110 (https://navaltoday.com/2019/04/02/spain-authorizes-eur-4-3b-for-construction-of-five-f-110-frigates/).  These ships aren't using Aegis, they're going only have 16-Cell VLS launchers in them verses.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: GreyWolfActual on 09 April 2019, 07:40:39
The militarized version (patrol frigate variant) of the Legend doesn't even exist but on paper.
But then again neither do Austal's or Lockheed's upgraded LCS variants. And given all the teething, and current, issues the LCS program has had, I wouldn't rank those two options very highly either. And with the reported flooding issues of the Helge Ingstad, that's a black mark against Navantia. Fincantieri is the only one putting forth an existing design with, seemingly, no baggage.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 09 April 2019, 08:20:38
"Did someone say 'warship of the future'?"

(https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/dimension=970x10000:format=jpg/path/s6f83a957bd4e7300/image/ib426cf58d6f2b10f/version/1499251887/image.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 09 April 2019, 08:29:22
"Did someone say 'warship of the future'?"

(https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/dimension=970x10000:format=jpg/path/s6f83a957bd4e7300/image/ib426cf58d6f2b10f/version/1499251887/image.jpg)

Jeez that poor guy right down aft...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 09 April 2019, 09:11:49
Jeez that poor guy right down aft...
Hope they remember he's out there. Lol (blub blub blub)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 09 April 2019, 10:09:00
We used to joke about 'that guy' in my old unit being a disposable mine detector or a single-issue LP/OP.  Imagine getting those kind of jokes as a look out on some of the old subs that actually had conning towers.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 09 April 2019, 12:34:03
The Spanish Ship Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate contender and the FREMM multipurpose frigate are both large ships well over 6000 tons. I thought they wanted to keep it down in the size department and in with the reduction in size keep the costs down.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 09 April 2019, 12:59:40
I thought they wanted to keep it down in the size department and in with the reduction in size keep the costs down.
Neither Fincantieri/Naval Group nor Navantia have smaller ships in their portfolio at all at the moment or for the foreseeable future.

Offhand the only (western) company on the entire global market offering something actually in the "desired" range that isn't vaporware and that has previous market exposure is TKMS.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Øystein on 10 April 2019, 15:27:27
KNM Helge Ingstad has been getting some field repairs and is fit for duty again  :D :o

(https://uc2a78d61ddf95506e9bf6704427.previews.dropboxusercontent.com/p/thumb/AAYPqaAXapKvNoVoT147HFnw1i1H8Fs84zxdZxgln6pqCSJMTTl8lBRyMxsI9LgrQuqr0KmzBI1FHyoJtJzu0_ZdlJbMDJvht2rFv1NpIjYHAPMLz4EZWExAZ3Eumn4r1p13IymkEQdAax-TNcD1QKs2O3c_DIAoZ_piRpFfsFAVsdJ35K7WKXfZuFhikwDYSaWE5lrruSqeLDE2Pu1iC8QbLmOwiVlc5V0LdUnRkmyyevZzgRP2__l33bNjM80gLmOR4U8FSJSVYZQkUustisjFOEjam-ACoMVN-11yvCwxp51AfLyV2A_GGhqRekiZvPyPdP_GeGrA-iNMDFkWZyxUxBVLn1fWwRg_E2JgDEa6g5PNVcZYyXvnvPxnkxsHHWGKzXkDzlP4kTsJGHD41q7JGDF_YwDBMUwhOFjkcFdfovStR-DcklJXPHVJNZRkYKBpB7UBvz9ZPKSTZQtmAOXV6eN4CHLSK9SIoZ4cURPyyz85hO93SRoURNJvXsJ3x5s/p.jpeg?size_mode=1)

It has been patched up so it can sail into the dry dock and be raised up there. All indications is that the ship will in all likelyhood be scrapped.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 10 April 2019, 16:30:47
(http://www.military-today.com/navy/seawolf_class.jpg)

Bubbleheads would agree with you that the target is floating again.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 11 April 2019, 06:58:15
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/HMS_Gotland_with_USS_Ronald_Reagan.jpg/1920px-HMS_Gotland_with_USS_Ronald_Reagan.jpg)
HSwMS Gotland leads the way telling the USS Seawolf (SSN-21) "Your bit noisy, old man." 

Gotland sank the USS Ronald Reagan, pictured behind her in this picture in parade.  It was a war game in 2015, she snuck up on the ship, took pictures with her escorts around and slung off likely sniggering later.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 11 April 2019, 14:14:09
RAN diesel boats frequently got 'shots' at US carriers in exercises. There's reasons folks worried about Russia selling Kilo class boats to all & sundry.

Unlike nucs, there's no flow noises when sitting still. Gotta keep the kettle simmering. So a quiet diesel with a good crew tend not to leave a hole in the ocean to be spotted.

Of course, in a war situation, it may be worth the surface ships being far more active with the sonar. Yes, tells people where they are, but in many cases they kind of know already.

W.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 11 April 2019, 14:40:33
Mass media published exercise results of allied diesel-electrics against USN nukes or carrier groups should be taken with a grain of salt.  The other important issue with such incidents is to look at the circumstances/conditions of the situation- location & RoE being big ones.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 11 April 2019, 15:24:32
Oh, definitely.

But a canny diesel operator who gets lucky predicting task force path can sit on the bottom and let the carrier sail overhead. I believe that's the usual way it's done in exercises.

Of course, in wartime YMMV ;) But it's good that the carrier commanders don't get complacent. "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed ..."

W.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 11 April 2019, 16:07:48
AIP diesel boats are a doubledeuce to track, because they've got that extended time away from surfacing.

And yeah, no matter how much sound damping you have, there's the very simple fact that a nuc plant at any level of output requires coolant flow at the very least as well as a trickle of power generation to avoid making hotspots.  You can get those bloody quiet, but not perfectly so.  Meanwhile, listening to an electrical system ticking away at 60hz, well...that's "hole in the water" levels of quiet.

re: the use of active sonar, dancing around rule 4 territory but aren't there rules limiting peacetime use of active pings so not to screw with sea life?  Those would go out the window in a combat environment, but that might be one reason why the subhunters aren't having such an easy job of it in peacetime.  Or maybe they are, tracking the SSK the whole time, just not telling anyone so that it's hard to judge how good their sonar is after all.  "Whoops they got us, shucks, guess our gear's not so hot" snicker snicker.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 12 April 2019, 04:37:25
re: the use of active sonar, dancing around rule 4 territory but aren't there rules limiting peacetime use of active pings so not to screw with sea life?  Those would go out the window in a combat environment, but that might be one reason why the subhunters aren't having such an easy job of it in peacetime.  Or maybe they are, tracking the SSK the whole time, just not telling anyone so that it's hard to judge how good their sonar is after all.  "Whoops they got us, shucks, guess our gear's not so hot" snicker snicker.

Ugh. No, there's no international convention against radiating sonar continuously. A lot of nations have policies regulating it, and outlawing it in their territorial waters, but there is no whole of world law covering it.

Oh, definitely.

But a canny diesel operator who gets lucky predicting task force path can sit on the bottom and let the carrier sail overhead. I believe that's the usual way it's done in exercises.

Of course, in wartime YMMV ;) But it's good that the carrier commanders don't get complacent. "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed ..."

W.

Gotta get really lucky there, a few miles and you're out of luck. Other than that, "I don't remember!"  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 April 2019, 06:20:07
Ugh. No, there's no international convention against radiating sonar continuously. A lot of nations have policies regulating it, and outlawing it in their territorial waters, but there is no whole of world law covering it.
Yeah, I was thinking of USN peacetime rules for fleet exercises.  Nothing international, just "keep the noise down while you're training" sort of thing.  I'd read a while ago there was kerfluffle over the use of active sonar and how it would mess with sea life at long distances, but I wasn't sure if there was anything on the books.

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 12 April 2019, 07:32:39
I randomly found this picture.  This is the British Pre-Dreadnought HMS Camperdown (sudden i get urge sing "Camptown Races song" when i hear that name) being used a Berthing Ship at Harwich, England between 1908 to 1911, before she was sold off.
(http://www.harwichanddovercourt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Camperdown.jpg)

Picture of the ship from it's better days.  Interesting design, with exposed main guns verses inside armored turrets. 

She was Admiral Class Battleship built in late 1880s.  She infamously was the ship the collided with HMS Victoria and sank her.
She being commissioned in 1889, she sort of had short career, given that she was paid off in 1903.  She was barely 14 years old, goes to show you how rapid obsolete due to Dreadnought's creation among other things did. 

Her most noted actions was during the 1897 Christian Insurrection where she joined the International Squadron,  and used her main 13inch guns in anger supporting the Ottoman Empire. 

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/HMS_Camperdown_%281885%29.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 April 2019, 09:45:50
Exposed guns intrigue me; obviously it's before the days of aircraft so being strafed wouldn't be so much of an issue.  Did they leave the armor off to make the turrets faster on the rotation, or just to save weight overall for the ship?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 12 April 2019, 09:57:43
My question is wether enclosed turrets for guns that big were even possible with the technology of the day. It may be less than two decades before Dreadnought, but as  was said, technology was moving very fast during that period. Rotating big guns is one thing, but they may not have been able to fit the machinery needed to traverse a fully armored(and unbelievably heavy) turret into a cramped warship.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 April 2019, 10:09:11
Monitor ran an eight-inch thick powered turret with a pair of 11" Dahlgrens, using two steam engines to run the turret.  I want to say it could make a full 360 in under a minute, but I can't remember where I'd read that.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 12 April 2019, 10:30:54
Yeah, but look at how big that- presumably- rotating table is for those mounted forward guns.  I would also assume this ship had a more advanced recoil recovery system as well as being breech loading.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 12 April 2019, 11:07:19
A lot of it was a metacentric height issue. There were more than a few predreadnoughts (granted, particularly in France and Russia, but elsewhere as well) that had absolutely awful balance issues due to too much weight being up-high. So by not armoring the gun mounts, you both eliminated an enormous amount of topside weight, and didn't REALLY affect the ship's durability- a hit on that mount probably was going to disable it anyway, armored or not, so why bother? (This obviously was a flawed way of looking at things, which is why it didn't continue past this point... one suspects the gun crews weren't asked for their opinions either.)

It's fascinating to look at the predreadnought era. As Weirdo pointed out, this is 20 years prior to Dreadnought, but things advanced amazingly fast at this point- and not from one direction, but many. Remember, Dreadnought's biggest advancement wasn't the all-big-gun concept (that was being attempted at the same time in the U.S. and Japan, remember), it's that she had turbine engines. The guns were almost an afterthought when you really look at the design. Between that point and the above, there's a whole lot of really interesting and unique ideas as a result of many advances all made around the same time- weapon technology, engine advancements, shipbuilding techniques, etc.

The results were ships that varied wildly, with different navies having what looked to them like great ideas that often just didn't really pan out, but had to be tested to find that out. A good example is the American attempts to mount their intermediate batteries atop the main batteries, which seemed wise because it meant less big holes in the deck (thus a stronger hull), less magazines to hit, and less chance of a hit knocking out a chunk of the ship's main firepower. Of course, metacentric height was a big problem as a result, and a lucky hit could disable a HUGE chunk of the ship's weaponry- and as a result, the American Navy discontinued that idea after a couple of classes. No one else even tried it though- it remained a unique idea there. Tumblehome hulls are another one that seemed like a great idea to the Russians in particular, that didn't really pan out as well as they wanted it to.

It's a fascinating era to look through and see how different navies approached the new technology and tactics being forced down their throats faster than they could keep up- and how it set up the following dreadnought race, eliminating bad ideas along the way so that by the time Dreadnought raised her flag, most of the silliness had been worked out of designers' systems in favor of simple efficiency.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 12 April 2019, 11:38:00
Turrets were possible even on these ships, a sub-variant and single ship, the HMS Hood replaced their barbettes with turrets, but she lost a deck and was always low in the water.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/HMS_Hood_%28Royal_Sovereign-class_battleship_of_1890s%29.jpg)

Bascailly it was a weight issue and as JadeHellbringer said, a metacentric height issue.  That huge weight of the turrets would have unbalanced the ship so they had to take a deck or two off to fit the turret in the place of the barbette.  But the open barbettes were later given overhead hoods and these would later evolve into the iterations of turrets that grew from there.  The Monitor style turrets were basically a bit of a dead end.

The early turrets or hooded barbettes also had a bit of an issue, they had to be trained to point ahead/astern to be reloaded because of the layout of the barbettes, some countries had all round loading (France and Italy) and then when the 'hooded barbette' came out these had some drawbacks like ahead loading, but protected the crews without the insane weight of the traditional monitor style turrets.  And in the very late 1800's Hooded barbettes evolved into having all round loading and this lead to the final demise of the open barbettes and the introduction of the hooded barbette.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 12 April 2019, 12:50:28
Meant to put this in my prior post and apparently forgot before hitting 'send'. This is USS New Jersey (no, not THAT one, this is BB-16), following her late-career upgrade to having  cage masts, among other improvements. Here she's wearing anti-submarine camouflage, a common thing for the predreadnought fleet to do in this period (the Nebraska regularly tested new schemes as well). This shot clearly shows what I was talking about before, with the intermediate battery mounted directly atop the main mounts, with anti-destroyer guns mounted in casemates along the hull (another couple were on 01 deck).

(https://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/battleships/newjersey/nj1918.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 12 April 2019, 13:07:06
While you say they did away with this, looked at cross-eyed it looks like later battleships where the main gun turrets were tiered instead all at the same level on the main deck.

(https://i2.wp.com/www.worldwar2facts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/USS-Texas-Canal.jpg)

Instead of like this French Danton contemporary to BB-16-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Danton-Marius_Bar-img_3137.jpg/1200px-Danton-Marius_Bar-img_3137.jpg)

Anyone want to volunteer for this gun crew?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e4/b3/01/e4b3010ec6540e81b90fc6566160a057--marine-nationale-naval-history.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 12 April 2019, 13:50:08
That gun looks like something you'd hunt whales with.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 12 April 2019, 14:42:35
Pivot gun . . . rapid fire, half inch or 1-inch gun?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 12 April 2019, 15:36:23
That's a QF 3-pounder Hotchkiss. 47mm. The shoulder rest for the gunner is characteristic for that particular gun-mount combo.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 12 April 2019, 15:39:51
https://play.acast.com/s/dansnowshistoryhit/seapowerswithandrewlambert (https://play.acast.com/s/dansnowshistoryhit/seapowerswithandrewlambert)


This is a very good and interesting 40 minute podcast
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 12 April 2019, 17:23:21
I really don't need to be getting into yet another minis game, but sometime I'd love to find a good ruleset for predread wargaming. It'd be absolutely fascinating to see how all those wild designs actually fare against each other.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 12 April 2019, 17:26:38
Spoiler alert: the Dreadnought wins...  ::)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 12 April 2019, 18:00:53
Well . . . US Fleet beats the Spanish when they sail into the harbor.  Only other naval battle that comes to mind near the era is the Battle of Tsushima Straits, which was also a decisive victory.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 12 April 2019, 18:44:25
Man, I want to post that excerpt of Voyage of the Damned, but got in trouble last time.  So I'll just leave this here. (http://www.hullwebs.co.uk/content/l-20c/disaster/dogger-bank/voyage-of-dammed.htm) instead.

Really, anytime Tsushima Straits comes up, it's got to be remembered just what the Tzar's forces were and were doing, compared to Japan's fleet that had basically sat around their home waters and dealt with local threats for a while rather than trying to sail around half the planet.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 12 April 2019, 19:14:34
I do remember a lot of that discussion, neither of the battles I cited were really a indication of the comparative design philosophies simply because the conditions of the battles vastly counted for way more than the ship builds.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Alexander Knight on 12 April 2019, 22:28:14
I really don't need to be getting into yet another minis game, but sometime I'd love to find a good ruleset for predread wargaming. It'd be absolutely fascinating to see how all those wild designs actually fare against each other.

Ironclads and Ether Flyers, Wierdo.  It even has navy lists for the 1880s.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 17 April 2019, 10:15:20
Snap shot of the future and the past.  Sea Hunter USV and the USS Missouri in backdrop in Pearl Harbor.

(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/181031-N-QE566-0003-660x371.jpg)

Maybe in 15-20 Years well barely 1 manned ship for every dozen USV per Task Force.   Personally, as much i want protect human life.  I'm not liking it at all.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 17 April 2019, 11:40:45
Speaking scary,  video footage has been taped of the Russian's new Nuclear-Powered Torpedo, nicknamed as the Kanyon.  (https://navaltoday.com/2018/07/19/russia-releases-first-video-footage-of-new-kanyon-status-6-nuclear-torpedo/).  Essentially this is a sea going nuclear ballistic missile, that meant take out carrier groups and ruin coastal areas with contamination. 
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 17 April 2019, 12:06:39
There are so many things wrong with the just the idea of that weapon it could probably rule 4 the entire forum all by itself... xp
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 17 April 2019, 12:21:08
I want to say the Russians have played around with that sort of weapon since at least the 80s.  Part of the idea was that since they had not been able to successfully penetrate a carrier group screen, they would exploit a warhead where 'close' was good enough.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 17 April 2019, 12:58:02
I want to say the Russians have played around with that sort of weapon since at least the 80s.  Part of the idea was that since they had not been able to successfully penetrate a carrier group screen, they would exploit a warhead where 'close' was good enough.


We've taken out the Mediterranean Fleet the easy way, we've nuked the whole of the Med...???
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 17 April 2019, 13:04:48
Pretty much, look at how the Soviets solved some of the engineering problems in military applications- they executed a brute force approach.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: grimlock1 on 17 April 2019, 14:57:25
Pretty much, look at how the Soviets solved some of the engineering problems in military applications- they executed a brute force approach.
Both sides deployed nuclear torpedoes during the Cold War.  On the old Balao subs, the control of the nuclear weapons came from a collar that locked around the circumference of the torpedo. There were two combination locks, one for the captain, one for the weapons officer.

Also, Tsar Bomba was 2 meters across by 8 meters long weighed in at 27 metric tons, but was only 50 megatons of TNT. So I'm taking that nice, round 100 megaton yield with a grain of salt.

Putting a tactical warhead in what amounts to a small autonomous sub with a range of several hundred miles?  Now that would keep me up at night.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 17 April 2019, 15:30:38
Yeah, I did not mean to sound like the US or NATO did not develop nuke warhead torps either-  its just that I do remember that being a 'solution' to NATO carrier battlegroups since their sub's ability to penetrate defenses before the Walkers was . . . less than ideal.  The Soviets would also have had more use for it IMO due to the differences in strategic surface deployments- they had more 'targets' like that than NATO.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 18 April 2019, 01:02:39
We might keep in mind is that all the video shows is a stationary craft spinning its propeller and moving its fins. That's a long way from operational threat and the Russians... well... they say lots of things.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 18 April 2019, 12:48:30
So in Brazil, lies perhaps the oldest active warship currently.  The Brazilian River Monitor, Parnaiba.  Commission 1937, she patrols the rivers of Brazil to this very day.  She participated in World War 2, but beyond what she done in action i don't know.  She been updated though the years, given a helicopter deck aft, and her engines were replaced with diesel, but her original reciprocating engine is on display at one of the in a memorial hall.

I found some nice photos of the ship
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=52326)
This is her during early years of service, which i THINK is 1937 when she commissioned in drydock.  You can see a Minas Geraes-class Battleship docked in the background

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=52328)
This is her underway, prior to her current refit.  I believe her old engine in use, way the stack is spewing smoke like that.  Her fantail now covered with helio pad for a Bell Jet Ranger.  Must been tight landing space if i'm reading it right.

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=52330)
This is her today (i believe), looks modern and than other picture above.  Her air vents which were in the middeck are gone.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 18 April 2019, 13:03:54
Actually . . . this girl is the oldest active warship afloat . . .

(https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/182107_10150882467271741_1571062732_n.jpg)

Launched in 1797 and in active service until 1881, later designated a museum ship in 1903.  I am not sure if this picture is from '97 or '12 when she is sailing with the US other remaining tall ship the USCGS Eagle.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 18 April 2019, 13:25:01
And a much earlier shot of her, with the USS Texas and USS New York in Boston.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 18 April 2019, 13:54:26
She went on a 90(?) port tour of the US in the 30s . . . it would be awesome to see that done again.

And I would assume she went to the West Coast because . . .

(https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/1552-5000-Panama-Canal-1933-1024x826.jpg)

(https://crashmacduff.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/39.jpg)

Wind-powered vessel using a motorized tug to cross a canal built as a 'modern' marvel.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ruger on 18 April 2019, 14:20:57
The way I understand it, the HMS Victory is the world's oldest commissioned warship, the USS Constitution is the world's oldest commissioned warship afloat, and the Parmaiba is the world's oldest commissioned warship afloat and still in active service doing active missions.

Ruger
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 19 April 2019, 14:40:22
Both sides deployed nuclear torpedoes during the Cold War.
And gave the order to fire on USS Randolph during the CMC; look up Vasili Arkhipov.

Of course there's all the above-water versions as well, how many of their cruise missiles (including the hypersonic ones) were built to carry an alchemy bomb anyway?

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ghost0402 on 19 April 2019, 18:13:47
Actually . . . this girl is the oldest active warship afloat . . .

(https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/182107_10150882467271741_1571062732_n.jpg)

Launched in 1797 and in active service until 1881, later designated a museum ship in 1903.  I am not sure if this picture is from '97 or '12 when she is sailing with the US other remaining tall ship the USCGS Eagle.
There is a 50,000 acre forest of oak specifically for her in Indiana.  An impressive amount of work is put into that ship to keep her afloat.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 19 April 2019, 21:59:40
There is a 50,000 acre forest of oak specifically for her in Indiana.  An impressive amount of work is put into that ship to keep her afloat.

Is it that big?  I knew there was a bunch of oak trees at Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane (or whatever it's called these days), but I didn't realize it was that size.  That's impressive.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: GreyWolfActual on 19 April 2019, 23:05:05
Not everyone of those trees is earmarked for the Constitution. They only need a handful each time she needs a refit, but since what they need is so specific they need that much land to ensure that the trees they do need exist.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ghost0402 on 20 April 2019, 03:20:06
Is it that big?  I knew there was a bunch of oak trees at Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane (or whatever it's called these days), but I didn't realize it was that size.  That's impressive.
There are about 150 trees there that are on a list for the Constitution.  I would imagine the list changes as newer trees hit the 80+ year age and size they want for the ship.  First heard of it in a book "A Most Fortunate Ship."  Not something i expected.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 20 April 2019, 05:07:25
Makes sense.  I did a little googling, and found this on Constitution:

https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2015/10/08/walking-the-plank/

Specifically the wood planks are triple layer white oak, live oak, and white oak again, boiled in salt water to make them flexible for shaping, and can be between 35 and 60 feet long and up to 7x7 inches in cross section.  And probably can't have knots or flaws in that entire length, which means you need a LOT of carefully grown wood and might end up throwing out the occasional 'almost' board.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 20 April 2019, 07:50:54
Well, as far sailing ships go.  Nice reproduction that sails is the HMS Surprise.  She a near-exact replica of the 6th-rate frigate, HMS Rose. 
She was renamed by the studio who did Master and Commander film. She currently now owned by the San Diego Maritime Museum.
(https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3048/2618187623_27c6d8749d_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 20 April 2019, 23:29:00
I kept wishing they would do one of the other books, but seems its not to be . . .
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: BairdEC on 22 April 2019, 00:09:16
I kept wishing they would do one of the other books, but seems its not to be . . .

They mashed at least two or three books together to make Master and Commander.  I really like that Patrick O'Brian takes all of his naval engagements directly from naval archives and changes the names to suit his story.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 22 April 2019, 00:44:20
I know they mashed up two . . . unfortunately with where it started we cannot see any of the capers in the Med . . . to be honest, I would have loved the outbreak of the War of 1812.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 22 April 2019, 07:55:11
USS Enterprise circus 1874...

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/USS_Enterprise_%281874%29_at_the_New_York_Navy_Yard.jpg)
She in docked at New York Harbor in 1874 here in this picture. This ship wa, a barque-rigged screw sloop.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 22 April 2019, 21:24:08
Ever wondered what happens when a multibillionaire does when he has too much money?



Before while still as the Guided Missile Frigates, Pietier Florenz.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=52399)
and After the MegaYacht, Yas
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=52401)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 23 April 2019, 21:32:02
I'd have kept it as-is for the most part, just...kinda improved the crew habitation some.  ANYONE can have a yacht.  When you've got a warship, that's something.  Even if it was all dummy guns and gear and empty launcher housings, I'd still totes keep it.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Orin J. on 23 April 2019, 23:29:13
so.. he bought a frigate, gave it a makeover to look like a pair of dollar store sunglasses, and named it "Yas" of all things? guess all that money buys you protection from criticism.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 24 April 2019, 02:06:24
Only poor people are weird.

Rich people are eccentric.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 24 April 2019, 02:16:53
Mo' dollahs than sense.

Also CV-1 Langley.  Kinda neat as the first in service US Carrier.


so.. he bought a frigate, gave it a makeover to look like a pair of dollar store sunglasses, and named it "Yas" of all things? guess all that money buys you protection from criticism.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 24 April 2019, 21:27:19
so.. he bought a frigate, gave it a makeover to look like a pair of dollar store sunglasses, and named it "Yas" of all things? guess all that money buys you protection from criticism.
He didn't just buy ONE frigate, he bought TWO decommissioned Frigates.
I wagering something didn't go so right for the conversion of HNLMS Abraham Crijnssen, renamed Abu Dhabi and Swift135.  It's Yas's sister ship.
There not lot info on the ship's conversion at them moment from what i can tell..
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 24 April 2019, 22:05:20
Getting back into pictures.  Tale of a unfortunate ship that sank twice. 

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/De_Zeven_Provinci%C3%ABn_in_port%2C_1910.jpg)
This is the HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën, she was a coastal defense ship for the Netherlands Royal Navy.  This ship operated in the Pacific protecting nation's Dutch East Indies colonies.

She was built in 1909, regarded as a small-cruiser but armored than built for speed.  Her main guns contained pair of single barrel  283 mm cannons mounted in her bow & stern turrets , while rest her guns are spread out the ship.  The ship seem appear to me as more like a cruiseliner than warship if ignore the turrets!

During World War I, the ship was used to escort passenger ships.

The ship was rather bad luck, apparently the dutch navy wasn't treating her crews well, the the  De Zeven Provinciën suffered a mutiny in 1933 with it's mix dutch and Indonesian crew.  Six days later, Dutch Minster of Defense authorized the ship to be bombed by military aircraft, killing 23 of the mutineers.  Ironically, Dutch authorities didn't noticed the glaring problem their ships had against aerial attack.  After the mutiny, the ship would be renamed the Soerabaja.

Soerabajawould be attacked by Japanese forces in 1942, only to be raised and put into service due to it sinking in shallow waters.  However, the ship would again be sank as a floating gunnery battery, but by allied force a year later near the Djamoenjan Reef of the coast of Indonesia.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 04 May 2019, 11:23:26
Does anyone know of a good online resource for someone looking to paint Royal Navy warships, specifically as they looked in the WWII Mediterranean?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Van Gogh on 04 May 2019, 15:29:20
http://www.world-war.co.uk/ (http://www.world-war.co.uk/) has some interesting and well-researched profiles, notably in the Med., in the "Art" section menu at the top right.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 04 May 2019, 22:10:16
Those are pretty cool. Anybody have ones for Victorious and/or Ark Royal?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 05 May 2019, 05:16:01
Those are pretty cool. Anybody have ones for Victorious and/or Ark Royal?


I can't find anything with a quick look but the World of Warships forums may have some


I did find this photo of HMS Dreadnought and HMS Victory
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 05 May 2019, 05:24:24
Browsing around, this site has some amazing pictures albeit most aren't of ships, they are all impressive and there are some of Marines and the like as well


http://www.womensystems.com/2018/04/50-breathtaking-wwii-colorized-photos.html (http://www.womensystems.com/2018/04/50-breathtaking-wwii-colorized-photos.html)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DaveMac on 05 May 2019, 07:49:07
Does anyone know of a good online resource for someone looking to paint Royal Navy warships, specifically as they looked in the WWII Mediterranean?

This any use matey?

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/uss-robin-hms-victorious
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 05 May 2019, 10:56:25
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/model-of-an-aircraft-carrier-flight-deck-at-the-2017-news-photo-803280594-1554833771.jpg?crop=1xw:1xh;center,top&resize=768:*)
A future "Storm" class carrier from the Russians...which probably isn't going to happen considering Kuznetsov's in worse shape than we thought before.  In addition to having half her boilers replaced and the others refurbished, patching the hole in the flight deck, and upgrades to literally everything else...it turns out that she doesn't have propellers.  All the props were removed while she was in drydock, and once that went to the bottom...

They've got one drydock left, but it's in the North Pacific.  Which means they'd have to TOW the poor thing in a reenactment of the Voyage of the Damned, only passing through Tsushima and continuing on...  Scrapping it is becoming more and more popular, according to Popular Mechanics quoting Izvestia.

That Storm class, though, that's a pretty one.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Fat Guy on 05 May 2019, 11:53:28
Is it supposed to have catapults? They had a pretty poor experience with only the ski jump in Syria (most of the air wing wound up flying out of a Syrian airbase to get useful range and payload).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Fat Guy on 05 May 2019, 11:55:33
Even more wishful thinking, the planes are Su-57s! Another doomed program.   ;D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 05 May 2019, 12:02:28
HMS Victorious pretending to be USS Robin in 1943 although the commentary says the colour scheme may be a bit suspect


I am really enjoying [size=78%]http://www.armouredcarriers.com/ (http://www.armouredcarriers.com/)[/size]
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 05 May 2019, 12:32:28
Wait... the V's point in the OPPOSITE direction the planes are flying??
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 05 May 2019, 16:24:26
The Economy for Russia has to improve to justify a new nuclear carrier. Which i think their sticking to submarines at this point.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: chanman on 05 May 2019, 23:03:31
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/model-of-an-aircraft-carrier-flight-deck-at-the-2017-news-photo-803280594-1554833771.jpg?crop=1xw:1xh;center,top&resize=768:*)
A future "Storm" class carrier from the Russians...which probably isn't going to happen considering Kuznetsov's in worse shape than we thought before.  In addition to having half her boilers replaced and the others refurbished, patching the hole in the flight deck, and upgrades to literally everything else...it turns out that she doesn't have propellers.  All the props were removed while she was in drydock, and once that went to the bottom...

They've got one drydock left, but it's in the North Pacific.  Which means they'd have to TOW the poor thing in a reenactment of the Voyage of the Damned, only passing through Tsushima and continuing on...  Scrapping it is becoming more and more popular, according to Popular Mechanics quoting Izvestia.

That Storm class, though, that's a pretty one.

Towing large ships is a pretty fraught exercise. Lots of cases of them foundering or breaking the tow line; especially in rough seas. And there's absolutely none of that in the North Pacific!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 05 May 2019, 23:52:44
HMS Victorious pretending to be USS Robin in 1943 although the commentary says the colour scheme may be a bit suspect


I am really enjoying [size=78%]http://www.armouredcarriers.com/ (http://www.armouredcarriers.com/)[/size]

Yeah, I love that site. Pretty sure that's not the paint scheme I'm seeking though, since it stems from her Pacific service. They seemed to repaint these things every time they entered a new zip code.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 May 2019, 00:44:29
Towing large ships is a pretty fraught exercise. Lots of cases of them foundering or breaking the tow line; especially in rough seas. And there's absolutely none of that in the North Pacific!
Oh forget the North Pacific.  She's in Kola Bay.  And because she can't do it under her own power, is unable to transit the Suez.

You're talking about a tow operation that starts east of Finland, swings around Sweden into the North Sea, winds past the G-I-UK line into NORLANT unless they want to cut back and parade their crippled ship past London, then south past the mouth of the Med, down Africa, all the way around the Cape of Good Hope, across the IO or the Arabian Sea, around Malaysia at the shortest into the South China Sea, then up through the Sea of Japan, and all the way past Vladivostok to Chazhma Bay.

Y'know, where the Soviets blew up a submarine's reactor in a refueling accident back in '85.  Mostly Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137, but it's still putting out 20-40mR/h these days.

Did I mention they'd be towing it there?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Elmoth on 06 May 2019, 02:45:39
Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a new one that salvaging the wrecked one? For what you are saying it is an exercise in madness to try to bring the dry dock around half the globe. Either build a new ship or a new dry dock
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 May 2019, 05:56:27
They kinda tried that buying a pair of Mistrals off the French...that didn't turn out well.  (Unless you're Egyptian)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 06 May 2019, 07:51:17
Speaking of Aircraft Carriers and pictures of warships.  :D

The Italian Carrier, Cavour.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=52593)

The even older, incomplete Aircraft Carrier, Aquila.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=52597)
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=52595)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 06 May 2019, 09:31:22
The alternative for Special K is a tow north of Siberia- with the receding polar ice, that's at least feasible now in the warmer seasons. Still dangerous, but might be easier than hauling her all the way around.

...that said, yeah, with the issues she's had in terms of maintenance, damage, and ineffectiveness (as previously noted, her planes were more useful from land bases than from the ship), it might nto be a bad idea to either scrap her or offer her 'as-is' to anyone interested. Bring your own tugboat, no lowballers, we know what we're selling, no trades. ;)

(And yes, Su-57 is a lovely airplane that makes the F-35 program look like smooth sailing. I'd be surprised if they ever go into large-scale production at this point.)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 06 May 2019, 09:40:08
The alternative for Special K is a tow north of Siberia- with the receding polar ice, that's at least feasible now in the warmer seasons. Still dangerous, but might be easier than hauling her all the way around.

...that said, yeah, with the issues she's had in terms of maintenance, damage, and ineffectiveness (as previously noted, her planes were more useful from land bases than from the ship), it might nto be a bad idea to either scrap her or offer her 'as-is' to anyone interested. Bring your own tugboat, no lowballers, we know what we're selling, no trades. ;)

(And yes, Su-57 is a lovely airplane that makes the F-35 program look like smooth sailing. I'd be surprised if they ever go into large-scale production at this point.)

Blimey, I had no idea that the Special K was in such a state. Scrapping the Special K at this point's basically the easier option, put the poor thing out of her misery and either use her as the target of a sinkex, or scrap her.

Also whats up with the SU-57 program?

and you folks might find this interesting its about the latest Russian SSBN - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKNqVOHs71Q
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 06 May 2019, 09:46:58
SINKEX could be a good idea. Without going into Rule 4, I'm sure there's a LOT of powers that would pay good money to know exactly what kind of firepower it takes to sink a modern carrier. See if a bunch of them would go in for a group buy or something.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 06 May 2019, 09:55:43
SINKEX could be a good idea. Without going into Rule 4, I'm sure there's a LOT of powers that would pay good money to know exactly what kind of firepower it takes to sink a modern carrier. See if a bunch of them would go in for a group buy or something.

Classified report leaked to the public: "To sink modern carrier: 1) Drop crane on deck. 2) Watch."
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 06 May 2019, 09:58:45
Classified report leaked to the public: "To sink modern carrier: 1) Drop crane on deck. 2) Watch."

(http://integratedstructure.com/wp-content/gallery/cira-centre-philadelphia-pa/03.jpg)

Is new ultimate weapon!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 06 May 2019, 12:15:01
Now for some different ships . . .

(http://watchersonthewall.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/703_euron_attacks-0.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 06 May 2019, 12:18:36
The hell is that?!?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 06 May 2019, 12:22:42
Game of Thrones?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 06 May 2019, 12:23:11
Lol, we know what you do NOT watch . . .

Yeah, she is called the Silence . . .
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 06 May 2019, 12:24:44
The hell is that?!?
Game of Thrones.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 06 May 2019, 12:50:39
please remember that it is no-spoilers outside the dedicated threads for them?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 06 May 2019, 13:05:38
The US Carrier Fleet once apon a time..

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=52599)
USS Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush, Enterprise, and Abraham Lincoln. Along with I think is USS Wasp LHD-1 in the backdrop with a Auxiliary ship.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 06 May 2019, 13:29:05
My picture is a previous season clip off shore of Casterly Rock- so 2 years old?

How old is that shot?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 06 May 2019, 14:08:46
Also whats up with the SU-57 program?

Cancelled. Or, in Moscow's words, too good for this world:

“The Su-57 is considered to be one of the best aircraft produced in the world. Consequently, it does not make sense to speed up work on mass-producing the fifth-generation aircraft.”

Although the Indians pulling out of a joint project, lack of interested external buyers, and state of the Russian economy may have had more to do with it.

W.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 06 May 2019, 14:44:29
The Indians pulled out of the light attack craft project?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 06 May 2019, 14:51:10
The Indians pulled out of the light attack craft project?

After all the shenanigans that happened with the refitted Kiev they got done in Russia, I can't say I don't blame them.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 06 May 2019, 14:52:06
My picture is a previous season clip off shore of Casterly Rock- so 2 years old?

How old is that shot?

Would love to see more updated shot with the big Updated Scorpions on the hull of the ships.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 06 May 2019, 15:04:26
Let's take the Game of Thrones stuff to another thread, folks.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ghost0402 on 06 May 2019, 15:18:33
Random question.  Has anybody been to the Cutty Sark in recent years?  I'm thinking about putting in a day there in June when i am in London. 
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 06 May 2019, 15:24:47
Random question.  Has anybody been to the Cutty Sark in recent years?  I'm thinking about putting in a day there in June when i am in London. 


I've been around there but not on the ship which looks odd with a glass casing all around
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 06 May 2019, 15:52:41
Let's take the Game of Thrones stuff to another thread, folks.

It was more to show off a Lanteen-rigged ship . . . though to be honest, I am not sure it would even be functional- those sweeps, a corvus jutting through the prow, a square sail in front of the lanteen.  It honestly looks like a mash-up to scream 'FANTASY' since the hull looks like a mix between a galleass and a galleon.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Ferdinand_Victor_Perrot_-_The_Battle_of_Grengam_on_27th_July_1720.jpg/1200px-Ferdinand_Victor_Perrot_-_The_Battle_of_Grengam_on_27th_July_1720.jpg)

(http://imgc.artprintimages.com/images/art-print/pierre-mortier-a-three-masted-galleass-under-way-by-sail-oars-shipped-from-le-naptune-francois-c-1693-1700_i-G-65-6510-S4T6100Z.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 07 May 2019, 08:46:10
How about a Korean Turtle ship, the Geobukseon? A ship when you really want keep those flaming arrows landing on your poop deck.

(http://montanaron.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Turtle_Ship1.jpg)
(http://www.suitcaseandheels.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/turtleship1a.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 07 May 2019, 15:33:28
SINKEX could be a good idea. Without going into Rule 4, I'm sure there's a LOT of powers that would pay good money to know exactly what kind of firepower it takes to sink a modern carrier. See if a bunch of them would go in for a group buy or something.
China would be your number one customer.  They're the only ones operating Kuznetsov-types, paying the Russians a few bucks to sink theirs and watch how the ship handles the damage and sinking would pay off handy for their engineering and damage control training alone.

I mean, it's not like the Russians even have a yard to scrap her in; anything other than 'going to eternal sleep in Polyarny' requires a drydock they just don't have.  Making a few bucks off the Chinese (and other interested parties) might just be your best option, considering.

Might afford a few more subs, maybe another one of those stretched Boreis?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 07 May 2019, 15:37:37
Guess that means Vlad's desire to build major combatants faster got turned into a pipe dream?  IIRC on certain classes he wanted to speed up from 5 years to 3 years for larger ships like cruisers and carriers.  Then again, that was back when oil prices were high . .
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 07 May 2019, 16:31:21
Funny to mention it, that looks like India is trying cut deal with UK to get designs for the Queen Elizabeth II (https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ins-vikramaditya-may-hit-delay-cost-increases-03283/) for their next carrier to server along aside with their exRussian Aircraft Carrier, INS Vikramaditya, which they paid arm and leg for.

(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-AK157_icarri_G_20131114110726.jpg)

Their nearly done building their own ship, the INS Vikrant.  I'm not sure what going on with that ship, why it wasn't mentioned.

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Orin J. on 07 May 2019, 23:17:59
Funny to mention it, that looks like India is trying cut deal with UK to get designs for the Queen Elizabeth II (https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ins-vikramaditya-may-hit-delay-cost-increases-03283/) for their next carrier to server along aside with their exRussian Aircraft Carrier, INS Vikramaditya, which they paid arm and leg for.

(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-AK157_icarri_G_20131114110726.jpg)

Their nearly done building their own ship, the INS Vikrant.  I'm not sure what going on with that ship, why it wasn't mentioned.

when in doubt, assume logistical shenannigans. that's always worked for me.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 08 May 2019, 12:02:08
when in doubt, assume logistical shenannigans. that's always worked for me.

I thought India had one of their own carriers being built under their own power and then a larger one down the pipeline.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 08 May 2019, 13:34:29
According to Wikipedia Vikrant is being fitted out, to be ready 2020-2021. From what I've read the plan was to follow up with a nuclear CV of 60-75,000 tons, but I guess the cost overruns of Vikrant might have made them reconsider and look at a cheaper, tested design.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 08 May 2019, 13:59:25
I wish we had sold them Enterprise
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 08 May 2019, 14:19:20
I can't imagine why you would.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 08 May 2019, 16:23:23
I wish we had sold them Enterprise
too old, too obsolete, and way too mcguyvered* to modernize. otherwise the navy wouldn't have retired it in the first place.

i'm just glad we're getting the CVN-80 to keep the name alive.


*specifically the nuclear powerplants, of which it has 8 Westinghouse A2W's. which were the subject of a multitude of experiments, individual upgrades, and repairs, resulting in each reactor effectively being a unique variant. the reactors were so intergrated into the engineering spaces as well that you could not replace them with more updated models without literally opening the entire hull and rebuilding the whole ship from the keel up. replacing rather, given that much of the structural elements around the reactors were so irradiated that they would require complete removal. this is also the reason that the ship was scrapped rather than converted to a museum ship. can't have intact nuclear reactors on a museum ship even if unfueled (due to safety regs regarding irradiated areas), and can't remove the reactors without dismantling the whole ship first.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 08 May 2019, 16:32:44
Was going to reply, then saw the asterik . . . but yeah, at the right price- which since we are paying someone to scrap it IIRC- it still works out as a deal all around.  We do not have to pay someone to scrap it, they get a fleet carrier for less than it would cost them to build one and offset a neighbor.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 08 May 2019, 16:56:28
Enterprise's wasn't in great shape. I had friends on her. Hull could have issues if ran into bad storm in the Atlantic.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 08 May 2019, 20:54:48
It's gonna be a while before anything happens with Big E, since (as of August) there's ten 688 hulls and the arse-end of Long Beach still to scrap up in Puget Sound.  There's a push to do it commercially, which is expected to take half the time and save a truckload of money (as well as not cause a giant backlog) but at the same time, the Navy's a little touchy about letting its cradle-to-grave handling of the powerplants be broken.

Until someone decides, she's gonna sit there rusting for a while.

Damn those things are huge.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 08 May 2019, 21:15:27
the follow on Nimitz and New Gerald Ford classes are even bigger. personally i would prefer the navy do the scrapping.. so they can recycle some of the steel into the parts for the CVN-80. similar to how they used some of the salvaged steel from the World Trade Center in the LPD-21 USS New York.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 08 May 2019, 21:52:42
Seeing the Big E rust is a sad thing.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 08 May 2019, 22:46:35
For some reason, i thought the ship's bridge superstructure was going to be preserved.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 09 May 2019, 05:02:03
Do India need nuclear power? They have no nuclear powered ships at the moment and are unlikely to be deploying far far away like the USN, I think it unlikely their carrier would leave the Indian Ocean so range is less of a problem. What I am not 100% sure about is the security of India's oil supplies but realistically they can get it from either the East or the West of them and I am not sure an enemy could cut those supply lines completely.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 09 May 2019, 06:19:55
Do India need nuclear power? They have no nuclear powered ships at the moment and are unlikely to be deploying far far away like the USN, I think it unlikely their carrier would leave the Indian Ocean so range is less of a problem. What I am not 100% sure about is the security of India's oil supplies but realistically they can get it from either the East or the West of them and I am not sure an enemy could cut those supply lines completely.

Uhh, INS Vikramaditya has already deployed to Japan...

As for whether they need an CVN, that's up to them. :)

I thought India had one of their own carriers being built under their own power and then a larger one down the pipeline.

Yep, the previously mentioned INS Vikrant. She's not huge, but it's a bit of a precedent as she is the only carrier ever built in India. The plan is to eventually replace INS Vikramaditya with an indigenously built carrier, once the lessons learned from Vikrant have been bedded down. Quite smart, the Indians.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 09 May 2019, 07:57:00
I haven't read INS Vikramaditya being deployed to Japan.  I found more recent picture of her, i guess she still doing trials?

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Bp7463WwsM4/UBaM3N-xpZI/AAAAAAAAAGc/Im0zuImteEk/s1600/INS_Vikramaditya.jpg)

Older picture of her with exHMS Hermes, which she replaced in service.  I hadn't noticed before, but the island/bridge isn't flush with edge of the ship.  I wonder what they stash over there.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-usvzMRX6ZMw/Usl1Eo95l9I/AAAAAAAAhNo/OvOjoelz7v4/s1600/INS+Vikramaditya+has+been+accompanied+by+INS+Trikand,+a+Talwar+class+frigate,+INS+Delhi+a+Delhi+class+destroyer+and+INS+Deepak,+the+fleet+tanker.+(5).jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 09 May 2019, 08:10:38
I haven't read INS Vikramaditya being deployed to Japan.  I found more recent picture of her, i guess she still doing trials?

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Bp7463WwsM4/UBaM3N-xpZI/AAAAAAAAAGc/Im0zuImteEk/s1600/INS_Vikramaditya.jpg)

Older picture of her with exHMS Hermes, which she replaced in service.  I hadn't noticed before, but the island/bridge isn't flush with edge of the ship.  I wonder what they stash over there.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-usvzMRX6ZMw/Usl1Eo95l9I/AAAAAAAAhNo/OvOjoelz7v4/s1600/INS+Vikramaditya+has+been+accompanied+by+INS+Trikand,+a+Talwar+class+frigate,+INS+Delhi+a+Delhi+class+destroyer+and+INS+Deepak,+the+fleet+tanker.+(5).jpg)

She's been officially accepted into service IIRC, doesn't mean not still doing trials, but yeah, she came around to do some exercising with the JMSDF. I don't think she berthed in Japan though, so that may be where the confusion comes from. They are keeping her pretty local, might have something to do with her material state.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 09 May 2019, 09:14:41
Do India need nuclear power? They have no nuclear powered ships at the moment and are unlikely to be deploying far far away like the USN, I think it unlikely their carrier would leave the Indian Ocean so range is less of a problem. What I am not 100% sure about is the security of India's oil supplies but realistically they can get it from either the East or the West of them and I am not sure an enemy could cut those supply lines completely.
they produce a fair bit themselves, just not enough for all their own needs, though with the increased push for developing renewable energy (currently at 1/3rd the total energy suppliers, and rising) that might change some.

right now nuclear is only worth it if the ship needs global range on a regular basis. (excepting fringe cases like the russian nuclear icebreakers, where the need was performance related). India doesn't make a habit of sending their fleet around the world, so they probably don't need nuclear. they are a nuclear power though and has some experience with nuclear power (22 reactors making about 3.2% of their nations power) so if they wanted it they probably wouldn't have too much trouble running it.

i do suspect that nuclear power on ships will become a bit more common if things like railguns and Laser-CIWS become viable and common technologies.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 09 May 2019, 10:10:16
Saw in the news the Russians plan to build their first nuke carrier per official sources, slated to start in 2023 'after breaking their only flattop' per headline.  Considering the other had a ski jump, I am not sure 'flattop' is a proper word choice.  Even if they do build a carrier (doubtful) what fleet is it going to be with?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 09 May 2019, 13:35:27
Saw in the news the Russians plan to build their first nuke carrier per official sources, slated to start in 2023 'after breaking their only flattop' per headline.  Considering the other had a ski jump, I am not sure 'flattop' is a proper word choice.  Even if they do build a carrier (doubtful) what fleet is it going to be with?
Given the status symbol the Russian Carrier was, odds are better on throwing more resources in pursuing to try make the thing. They didn't have the dock to build one, but i'd imagine they either build yard to build it or out source the carrier hull to the Chinese since they do have the capacity of making their style carrier and use virtually the same planes.

However sometimes they say one thing and quietly not mention their holding off doing it.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 09 May 2019, 13:55:01
Or declare "we have made the greatest thing in the world and there's no need to make any more."  See also PAKFA...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 09 May 2019, 15:42:47
they produce a fair bit themselves, just not enough for all their own needs, though with the increased push for developing renewable energy (currently at 1/3rd the total energy suppliers, and rising) that might change some.

right now nuclear is only worth it if the ship needs global range on a regular basis. (excepting fringe cases like the russian nuclear icebreakers, where the need was performance related). India doesn't make a habit of sending their fleet around the world, so they probably don't need nuclear. they are a nuclear power though and has some experience with nuclear power (22 reactors making about 3.2% of their nations power) so if they wanted it they probably wouldn't have too much trouble running it.

i do suspect that nuclear power on ships will become a bit more common if things like railguns and Laser-CIWS become viable and common technologies.

Well, the other side of it on a carrier is that if your ship doesn't need to carry fuel for itself, it can carry that much more for its planes- in a long campaign, that can mean the difference between having to sail for home on a Monday vs. continuing to provide air cover the rest of the week.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 13 May 2019, 16:25:48
The US Marines are a comin', the US Marines are a come'in! to a British Carrier!

The aircraft here is a F-35B from the F-35 Integrated Test Force doing test landings on QE.
(https://images03.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2019-05/F35B-hms-queen-elizabeth-1800.jpg?itok=H9Qpy3ta)
Apparently, the US Marines are going have attached squadron F-35Bs on the HMS Queen Elizabeth when it starts actively flying aircraft along side with Royal Air Forces in 2021. It was reported on Military.com. (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/05/07/us-marine-f-35-squadron-will-deploy-british-aircraft-carrier-2021.html)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 14 May 2019, 03:55:26
Well, the other side of it on a carrier is that if your ship doesn't need to carry fuel for itself, it can carry that much more for its planes- in a long campaign, that can mean the difference between having to sail for home on a Monday vs. continuing to provide air cover the rest of the week.

Hmm, no, not even remotely close to reality. Ships are designed around space and weight considerations, not amount of fuel held, considering nuclear propulsion requires the same moving parts as a gas turbine, and you haven't even taken into consideration the reactor or cooling there, you've got big issues if you look at it that way! Nuclear propulsion requires substantially more space and weight than any current generation propulsion method, they had an advantage over old oil or coal fired steam ships though.

Ships can replenish fuel, along with food, at sea almost indefinitely, it's maintenance and crew fatigue/sanity that provide your biggest limiting factor. I've been at sea on an FFG that did nearly 80 days straight at sea, that gagged on it! So it's your logistical chain that is extended, but that's all you really get. There's really not much argument for nuclear except you reduce your immediate fuel burden, submarines are a different issue, but comparable in a lot of ways.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: wantec on 14 May 2019, 08:46:31
The US Marines are a comin', the US Marines are a come'in! to a British Carrier!

The aircraft here is a F-35B from the F-35 Integrated Test Force doing test landings on QE.
(https://images03.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2019-05/F35B-hms-queen-elizabeth-1800.jpg?itok=H9Qpy3ta)
Apparently, the US Marines are going have attached squadron F-35Bs on the HMS Queen Elizabeth when it starts actively flying aircraft along side with Royal Air Forces in 2021. It was reported on Military.com. (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/05/07/us-marine-f-35-squadron-will-deploy-british-aircraft-carrier-2021.html)
Yep that's been known for 2-3 years now. For various reasons the Brits won't have as many F-35s & pilots ready for the deployment so the Marines will send along an air wing. In addition to having more aircraft, the US Marines have been running flight ops aboard ship longer with the F-35 than the Brits.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 25 May 2019, 09:46:06
SSGN-587 Halibut showing off to CV-16 Lexington that it too, can launch flying things. 
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 25 May 2019, 09:51:17
Ahh the Regulus, I do recall reading somewhere that they were even pushing the Regulus as a kind of 'post delivery' thing for the US mail service at one point. Can't remember where I read that.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 25 May 2019, 10:00:56
Maybe mail to Alaskan bases?

Ahh the Regulus, I do recall reading somewhere that they were even pushing the Regulus as a kind of 'post delivery' thing for the US mail service at one point. Can't remember where I read that.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 25 May 2019, 10:03:51
https://postalmuseum.si.edu/collections/object-spotlight/regulus-mail.html

Ahh the Regulus, I do recall reading somewhere that they were even pushing the Regulus as a kind of 'post delivery' thing for the US mail service at one point. Can't remember where I read that.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 25 May 2019, 10:45:52
I remember seeing a story about the Reguls being turned into a guided Mail Truck...but it just didn't work out for reasons.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 25 May 2019, 11:08:07
https://postalmuseum.si.edu/collections/object-spotlight/regulus-mail.html
This quote from that is a bit intentionally misleading in its wording:
"This peacetime employment of a guided missile for the important and practical purpose of carrying mail, is the first known official use of missiles by any Post Office Department of any nation."

Austria tested mail rockets with regular mail in the 30s several dozen times. However: This wasn't by a "Post Office Department of a nation" but by its private competition. And it wasn't guided. The same goes for trials in India in the 40s.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 25 May 2019, 11:32:09
I'm rather impressed, as I did not know the Regulus could land safely.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 25 May 2019, 12:10:17
Only the prototypes and training missiles (this was one of the latter kind) had landing gear and could be reused.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: nerd on 25 May 2019, 13:58:05
I'm rather impressed, as I did not know the Regulus could land safely.
The ability to reuse the test missiles was one of the reasons the Navy selected Regulus over the almost identical Matador. It could also be used as a drone as well.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 25 May 2019, 14:17:31
Even at its best the Regulus  was not very accurate at least a half mile off...so I really would love to know the logic on making a missile into a mail delivery vehicle concept.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 25 May 2019, 14:42:39
Even at its best the Regulus  was not very accurate at least a half mile off...so I really would love to know the logic on making a missile into a mail delivery vehicle concept.

Half a mile's still basically not bad by the standard of the time. Utterly irrelevant considering its nuclear warhead but still not too bad as a mail delivery :D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 25 May 2019, 18:50:11
Shame they retired the LGM-118 (my dad worked on the mockups for that in the design phase) since it'd be the perfect UPS system.  "Next day AIR shipping?  Pfhah, this'll get your package around the world before you can get a pizza delivered."  We actually wrote up a powerpoint presentation on the technology, how independently targeted MIRVs made it ten times more efficient per launch as it could reach multiple clients with a single flight, that weather would not be a hindrance to delivery like it can be for other services, and that insurance was available in the event of package loss due to ABM defenses...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 25 May 2019, 20:27:33
Shame they retired the LGM-118 (my dad worked on the mockups for that in the design phase) since it'd be the perfect UPS system.  "Next day AIR shipping?  Pfhah, this'll get your package around the world before you can get a pizza delivered."  We actually wrote up a powerpoint presentation on the technology, how independently targeted MIRVs made it ten times more efficient per launch as it could reach multiple clients with a single flight, that weather would not be a hindrance to delivery like it can be for other services, and that insurance was available in the event of package loss due to ABM defenses...
that whole "ordering from amazon triggers WW3" problem must have been the major hurdle?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 25 May 2019, 22:47:10
That's just a minor setback.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 26 May 2019, 07:56:28
Half a mile's still basically not bad by the standard of the time. Utterly irrelevant considering its nuclear warhead but still not too bad as a mail delivery :D

...half a mile is still better accuracy than the UPS driver I deal with at work. Get that man a Regulus!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 26 May 2019, 15:44:17
Well, I'd like to get to navy pictures....

How about little Imperial Russian Navy picture of one their few Battleships they made, Volya. (This is form 1917)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Volya1917-1.jpg)
The ship was part of the White Fleet, commanded by Russian Baron Wrangel (no relation).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 26 May 2019, 17:01:30
...half a mile is still better accuracy than the UPS driver I deal with at work. Get that man a Regulus!
Well, CEP on the MX series was down to 40 feet, which with a 350kt warhead is "minute of beard-hair" accuracy!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 27 May 2019, 20:40:30
Ferry service that maybe little bit kookie, maybe little loonie. This ship operates out of France

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=52883)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 27 May 2019, 20:58:44
Also, looks like Italy has launched it's largest warship since World War II, the Trieste.  She a LHD, like Wasp-Class.
She due to be commissioned in 2022.  She suppose to carry F-35Bs, but i don't know if their still going to do that.

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=52885)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: rebs on 29 May 2019, 01:49:23
https://taskandpurpose.com/uss-preble-laser-weapon-system-2638286899.amp.html (https://taskandpurpose.com/uss-preble-laser-weapon-system-2638286899.amp.html)

The above linke is to an article about a new laser system that the USS Prebel will be depolying to respond to drones, aircraft, and even cruise missiles. 
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 29 May 2019, 01:51:14
I'm sure the name played some part in ship selection.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 29 May 2019, 07:13:08
I hope it works. Im not completely sold swapping out the Seawiz out with something from what ive read has killed speeding missile yet.

In a link article, Navy maybe putting railgun on a ship. They've nearly abandoned it due to slow progress. We need the thing but shell development for it seems to work fkr existing guns. As it stands Railgun take 2 minutes to charge and 1 second to fire which seems to be bad rate fire if they want thing to shoot missiles.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 29 May 2019, 10:04:22
As I understand, nobody has ever expected the railgun to shoot missiles. They expect it to shoot at things like destroyers and continents.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: rebs on 29 May 2019, 10:14:26
Right there is no single wonder weapon that beats everything.  Its a mixture of arms that's in our future.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 29 May 2019, 10:51:21
Interesting about the Navy's -35C . . . only 2% certified ready for carrier ops?  Ruu-ro Shaggy

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/05/28/navy-deactivates-f-35-training-squadron-it-concentrates-stealth-fighter-ops.html (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/05/28/navy-deactivates-f-35-training-squadron-it-concentrates-stealth-fighter-ops.html)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 29 May 2019, 11:18:59
I hope it works. Im not completely sold swapping out the Seawiz out with something from what ive read has killed speeding missile yet.

In a link article, Navy maybe putting railgun on a ship. They've nearly abandoned it due to slow progress. We need the thing but shell development for it seems to work fkr existing guns. As it stands Railgun take 2 minutes to charge and 1 second to fire which seems to be bad rate fire if they want thing to shoot missiles.

I thought they had canceled the railgun.  I hadn't heard they were still working on it.  They did have some multiple shot tests a few years ago that were able to fire quicker than every two minutes.

https://youtu.be/rtZGXW9QRfo (https://youtu.be/rtZGXW9QRfo)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 29 May 2019, 11:34:19
New article was discussing mounting it on a ship for test firing . . . and what I saw was suggesting it was not a active warship, like they were refitting a DD's 3 inch popgun.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 29 May 2019, 13:10:04
they cancelled the original plan to sea-test it. they're still working on it in the labs, but doing field tests is on hold while they figure out how to do it within budget.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 29 May 2019, 14:01:10
The German Navy will be doing another test with a laser weapon for C-RAM purposes mounted operationally on a corvette next year. Testing a competing model this time.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: beachhead1985 on 29 May 2019, 14:13:42
The German Navy will be doing another test with a laser weapon for C-RAM purposes mounted operationally on a corvette next year. Testing a competing model this time.

If we get usable air defence lasers up and running, combat airpower is a dead letter, in the peer vs peer sense.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 29 May 2019, 14:25:07
Only for as long as it takes to develop a countermeasure, or ablative drone airpower.

The big leap is never the end of the arms race, it's just the start of the next round.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 29 May 2019, 15:13:15
Didn't they design ICBMs in the 70s or 80s with Laser defense in mind?  I seem to recall something about how they wanted the MIRV warheads rotating at a certain speed to defend against expected attacking lasers at the time.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 29 May 2019, 15:30:08
Didn't they design ICBMs in the 70s or 80s with Laser defense in mind?  I seem to recall something about how they wanted the MIRV warheads rotating at a certain speed to defend against expected attacking lasers at the time.
rotation proved useless against lasers.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 29 May 2019, 15:44:40
I know it was a defense intended to prevent burn through, just was using it to point out folks have been thinking about how to defend from lasers before we even have a capable laser weapon.  Reflec, abalative, aerosols, chaff, ejecting prisms, and other methods have all been considered.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 29 May 2019, 22:35:43
Didn't they design ICBMs in the 70s or 80s with Laser defense in mind?  I seem to recall something about how they wanted the MIRV warheads rotating at a certain speed to defend against expected attacking lasers at the time.

Opponents of the Star Wars program pointed out what kind of potential defenses could be put on an ICBM to protect it from a laser anti-missile system, but I don't know if there were ever any actual missiles built with such defenses.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 04 June 2019, 20:42:55
Okay, I cannot find anything anywhere. Can anybody point me in the direction of color reference images for painting HMS Victorious as she appeared during Mediterranean operations, such as the Malta convoys?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: chanman on 04 June 2019, 21:57:07
I found this:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8e/aa/33/8eaa3397d8a799f8062f6b6d4110c43f.jpg)

One of these references might have what you're looking for:

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/reference (http://www.armouredcarriers.com/reference)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 05 June 2019, 10:32:32
Tale of two sisterships, Zumwalt and the Michael Monsoor. Apparently the US Navy has activated a Surface Development Squadron (https://news.usni.org/2019/05/22/navy-stands-up-surface-development-squadron-for-ddg-1000-unmanned-experimentation) for them exclusively attached, which is intended to experiment with Droneships and manned ships working together.  A pair of Sea Hunters (production ones) will join the two behemoth destroyers in San Diego.

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=52964)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 10 June 2019, 14:11:28
The Philippine Navy final got their very first missile guided frigate.  It's big deal since they've been stuck with left overships, including a Destroyer-Escort they've kept going way past its retirement date.

BRP  Jose Rizal F-150, she 2,300 ton, 3 inch gun, 8-Cell VLS, pair of twin Simbad anti-air missile launchers,  A twin LIGNex1 SSM-700K C-Star Anti Ship Missile launcher, 30mm auto cannons, Anti-sub torpedoes, and a landing pad/hangar for Wildcat Helio.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/BRP_Jose_Rizal_%28FF-150%29.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Garrand on 10 June 2019, 15:42:47
The Philippine Navy final got their very first missile guided frigate.  It's big deal since they've been stuck with left overships, including a Destroyer-Escort they've kept going way past its retirement date.

Considering the Phillipines is a nation of over 7000 islands, you would think they'd have a better navy...

Damon.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 10 June 2019, 15:55:46
Considering the Phillipines is a nation of over 7000 islands, you would think they'd have a better navy...

Damon.
they have the navy they can afford, not the one they want.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 10 June 2019, 16:01:18
The one they want left when they took back possession of Subic Bay . . .
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 10 June 2019, 16:12:59
That's about as close to Rule 4 as I think we want go there...  ::)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 10 June 2019, 17:50:13
The other question, do they need big ships or a truckload of smaller things like PT boats or coastal-patrol ships to cover the area among the islands?  Certainly having a few of the former never hurts, but I'd keep focus on the small hulls myself and keep a "swarm" sort of fleet - wherever you go, there's always a squadron or three nearby.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 10 June 2019, 17:53:15
Answers get into Rule 4 since its going to deal with geo-politics.

Anyone got a list of WWII ships still actively serving in any of the world's navies?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 10 June 2019, 19:39:56
Philippines at the moment has couple classes worth still in full commission
Auk-Class Minesweepers which been acting as Patrol Corvettes, both commissioned 1944 & 1943. I suspect one is on verge of retirement since new Frigate being commission has name but  full person of the name.  BRP Rizal and BRP Quezon.  Three PCE(R)-848-class rescue patrol craft escort, a LST-542 class & LST-1-class tank landing ships.

Mexican Navy still has number of Auk-Class Minesweepers as Patrol ships and exUSS Clearwater County, a  LST-542-class tank landing ship.

Argentina only as couple of Abnaki-class fleet ocean tugs from WW2 that are active.

There maybe more, but not alot.   Not active anyways. Mexico and Taiwan had number of WW2 Destroyers in commission, as the Philippines had last Destroyer Escort still in active service few years ago.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 10 June 2019, 20:21:01
Yeah, I figure most of the WWII era ships that were sold to second class navies were decommissioned in the late 80s or early 90s.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 10 June 2019, 20:30:53
Oldest one I could find was ARM Netzahualcóyotl, decommissioned in 2014.  Not all that long ago, all things considered.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 11 June 2019, 06:02:37
The other question, do they need big ships or a truckload of smaller things like PT boats or coastal-patrol ships to cover the area among the islands?  Certainly having a few of the former never hurts, but I'd keep focus on the small hulls myself and keep a "swarm" sort of fleet - wherever you go, there's always a squadron or three nearby.

The answer is, it depends!

Navies are not a one size fits all, it's all about what the countries objectives and requirements are, and how they intend to achieve those.

Sometimes a moderate number of big ships is good, other times a large amount of small ships is good, it's all about the threat environment and intended use.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Istal_Devalis on 11 June 2019, 10:24:37
Answers get into Rule 4 since its going to deal with geo-politics.

Anyone got a list of WWII ships still actively serving in any of the world's navies?
One of them:
Technically launched while WWII was still ongoing, the USS Cutlass (http://Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cutlass_(SS-478)) is currently still in service with Taiwan as the Hai Shih. They expect to keep her going until 2026.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 11 June 2019, 12:50:42
Other than the ones already named:

Thailand has a Cannon class DE in active service as a salute ship.
Vietnam has a LST-542 that i think they're keeping for Rule 4 reasons.
Ecuador has a Abnaki-class ocean tug in active service.
Madagascar might still have a Chamois class minesweeping sloop in service as a patrol boat (if they do it's the former A10 Chevreuil).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 11 June 2019, 13:48:28
Here the Cannon-Class HTMS Pinklio, doing some saluting, aka exUSS Hemminger DE-746.

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=53070)

What is cool, is she apparently has her own model in 1/1700 scale.
(http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/dd/htms/pinklao-700-nb/pinklao-01.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 11 June 2019, 16:52:07
Didn't the Brazilians still have one from that era in service?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 11 June 2019, 16:56:49
They had some river cruiser IIRC, someone posted pictures a half dozen pages or so back.  Part of why I asked that question so see what else might be out there now that we have passed the 75th anniversary of D-Day.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 11 June 2019, 17:32:46
The USS Pueblo was originally built and in service at the end of WW2 and is still in commission with the US Navy, but I'm sure that's for Rule 4 reasons also.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 11 June 2019, 18:19:51

Vietnam has a LST-542 that i think they're keeping for Rule 4 reasons.

Vietnam's LST is not much in the limelight

IINM you're thinking of Philippines' LST-542, and I'd argue that it's no longer functionally a ship.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 11 June 2019, 21:28:02
Didn't the Brazilians still have one from that era in service?
They have a Monitor.  She from 1930s.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 12 June 2019, 01:59:29
Vietnam's LST is not much in the limelight

IINM you're thinking of Philippines' LST-542, and I'd argue that it's no longer functionally a ship.
I'm thinking of Tran Khanh Du, formerly USS Maricopa County with the USN and LST-938 in WW2 (commissioned in 09/44); Da Nang with the Republic of South Vietnam Navy, from whom she was captured.

(http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n400/binhnhatvn/HQ-TT4_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 12 June 2019, 16:16:15
Yeah, USS Pueblo is a fascinating story, one that I strongly encourage you all to read up on if you're not familiar, and definitely one that probably shouldn't be detailed a great deal here since it's kind of still ongoing. Hate to say it, because I'd love to join in a discussion on it, but... not the place.  :-\
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Euphonium on 19 June 2019, 19:54:57
Anybody fancy owning the wreck of a WWI German dreadnought? This could be your lucky day, there are three up for sale on eBay right now, along with a light cruiser!  :D ;D

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-48684400 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-48684400)

Link edited
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 19 June 2019, 20:01:39
While it's normally a breach of forum rules to post links to current active eBay auctions, I will appeal for a waiver in this specific case.

W.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Bedwyr on 19 June 2019, 20:08:32
Granted on my initiative and the rule of cool. Unless you're shilling for the seller and think someone on these forums will spring for the ship. Are you shilling?  :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 19 June 2019, 20:11:40
If all it took was a shilling, I'd shill out a shilling for a ship.

(To the tune of "I'd rather be a hammer than a nail ...")
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Euphonium on 19 June 2019, 20:21:31
While it's normally a breach of forum rules to post links to current active eBay auctions, I will appeal for a waiver in this specific case.

W.

Ooops!  :-[

Links edited & replaced with the story on BBC News.

Granted on my initiative and the rule of cool. Unless you're shilling for the seller and think someone on these forums will spring for the ship. Are you shilling?  :)

I appreciate the waiver but I'd rather not break the rules anyway.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 19 June 2019, 20:23:22
I'd like to see how Amazon will ship it to the auction winner.  ;)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: CrossfirePilot on 19 June 2019, 20:32:55
I'd like to see how Amazon will ship it the auction winner.  ;)

Probably depends on if they have Prime or not...I am actually surprised that Jeff Bezos isn't thinking to himself "well don't have one of those, I WANT! No wait, I am going to wait for Zuckerberg to buy one then I am going to one up him by getting either the Bismark or the Yamato"
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Euphonium on 19 June 2019, 20:38:19
I'd like to see how Amazon will ship it the auction winner.  ;)

"Delivery: Buyer is responsible for vehicle collection or delivery."
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 19 June 2019, 20:49:03
I'd like to see how Amazon will ship it the auction winner.  ;)

Amazonian in the UK Amazon Distribution Centre: "You have got to be kidding, you want me to try to bubble wrap that?"

 :D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 19 June 2019, 21:07:52
Condition: Used.

Can't help but think "For parts or not working" might be more accurate.

Thing is, those wrecks are a great source of non-radioactive iron/steel needed for many scientific instruments. Most of the High Seas Fleet got salvaged for just that reason (most iron production involves blowing massive quantities of air through the mix. Since 1945, this has been a major problem as residual radioactivity will muck up very sensitive instruments.) But now they're protected. And - unlike wrecks in the Pacific - no illegal dredging is going to disturb these sleeping leviathans.

W.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 20 June 2019, 00:06:26
Please tell me some folks got creative with question, especially with it labeled 'used.'

Q:  Is this suitable for fighting off aliens?

Q:  Does the manufacturer still make spare parts?

Q:  Can I get a picture of the engines?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 20 June 2019, 02:45:08
Please tell me some folks got creative with question, especially with it labeled 'used.'

Q:  Is this suitable for fighting off aliens?
only if rebuilt into a spaceship with an all powerful stardrive-cannon.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 20 June 2019, 05:27:39
Auction has been pulled.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 20 June 2019, 06:49:17
In the meanwhile, working ships.
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/160421-N-YE579-003-486x660.jpg)

Apparently USNI's news section reported that next Large Surface Combatant will look like Zumwalt-Class. (https://news.usni.org/2019/06/19/navy-next-large-surface-combatant-will-look-a-lot-like-zumwalt)  I don't know how many they will end up building, since there been change in thinking there should be more small surface combatants ships and drone ships in larger formations, with only few big ones like Zumwalt and Arleigh Burkes.

In my opinion the Navy been very reluctant to replace the Burkes, since they don't have speculator time keeping budget down to normal levels.  However, they need get off there tushes and build something new given room needed & power demands newer weapons require is bit out of range of even the Flight III Arleigh Burkes.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 20 June 2019, 08:53:48
Condition: Used.

Can't help but think "For parts or not working" might be more accurate.

Thing is, those wrecks are a great source of non-radioactive iron/steel needed for many scientific instruments. Most of the High Seas Fleet got salvaged for just that reason (most iron production involves blowing massive quantities of air through the mix. Since 1945, this has been a major problem as residual radioactivity will muck up very sensitive instruments.) But now they're protected. And - unlike wrecks in the Pacific - no illegal dredging is going to disturb these sleeping leviathans.

W.

"Ran when parked"
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Garrand on 20 June 2019, 10:01:27
Granted on my initiative and the rule of cool. Unless you're shilling for the seller and think someone on these forums will spring for the ship. Are you shilling?  :)

I'm not important enough for shilling. I'm only a pence...

Damon.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Euphonium on 20 June 2019, 11:57:40
Auction has been pulled.

Auctions are still live for me.

Thing is, those wrecks are a great source of non-radioactive iron/steel needed for many scientific instruments. Most of the High Seas Fleet got salvaged for just that reason (most iron production involves blowing massive quantities of air through the mix. Since 1945, this has been a major problem as residual radioactivity will muck up very sensitive instruments.) But now they're protected. And - unlike wrecks in the Pacific - no illegal dredging is going to disturb these sleeping leviathans.

We've got some kit at work that is shielded with steel from one of the Royal Navy's old battleships. IIRC someone told me it was HMS Warspite.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 20 June 2019, 14:00:37
Please give it a pat from me.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 20 June 2019, 16:11:58
Wow. Because I looked at those auctions yesterday, eBay is sending me emails asking me to make an offer on SMS König. ;D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 20 June 2019, 16:18:14
Now THAT's hilarious!   ;D

And terrifying... :yikes:

And yet people insist on installing Alexa and other home surveillance tools in their homes... willingly...  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 20 June 2019, 17:06:16
MAN!  I could have put up a good one!

(https://d2g8igdw686xgo.cloudfront.net/39547176_1559096782346912_r.jpeg)

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/05/24/18/13913206-7067145-Storms_The_devastating_flooding_in_Oklahoma_wreaked_havoc_across-a-2_1558720586836.jpg)

We were making jokes that my state had its own navy for a bit.  She floated off her moorings and they had to have folks from the 'port' that dealt with barges make sure she was secure so the Batfish would not move too far . . . the museum and port officials were watching the flood levels to make sure she went back to rest properly on the mount/pedestal/whatever rather than settling into the mud or on uneven ground.

My first thought about her re-floating was that the museum had kept up her maintenance pretty well over the years if the hull was that intact.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Euphonium on 20 June 2019, 17:14:44
Wow. Because I looked at those auctions yesterday, eBay is sending me emails asking me to make an offer on SMS König. ;D

Same here!

Then is started offering me houseboats as well...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 20 June 2019, 18:55:05
Same here!

Then is started offering me houseboats as well...

Behold our future, governed by algorithms that are all seeing, omnipresent, and kinda stupid.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 20 June 2019, 19:10:55
Behold our future, governed by algorithms that are all seeing, omnipresent, and kinda stupid.
A Comedian State instead of a Police State? I... I can live with that.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 20 June 2019, 19:32:51
A Comedian State instead of a Police State? I... I can live with that.
More like "Brazil" with a laugh track I think.

Anyway, more ships.  Derfflinger's last moments, 100 years ago tomorrow.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 20 June 2019, 20:23:24
Amazonian in the UK Amazon Distribution Centre: "You have got to be kidding, you want me to try to bubble wrap that?"

 :D

If it's like a normal Amazon shipment it will be in a box that's way too big with not a scrap of packing material.

And while we're on Amazons....HMS Amazon.

(https://i.imgur.com/Xhq5qdn.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 20 June 2019, 20:30:08
If it's like a normal Amazon shipment it will be in a box that's way too big with not a scrap of packing material.

Like to see someone take that ship off a porch!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 20 June 2019, 21:15:14
Like to see someone take that ship off a porch!

I'm sure the package delivery systems on the bow and above the helicopter hanger would help discourage that.   ;D

Edit:  Whoops...thought you were talking about HMS Amazon.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 20 June 2019, 22:38:50

(https://i.imgur.com/Xhq5qdn.jpg)
To be precise, ex-Amazon PNS Babur.

I was like "Huh, since when did the RN put Phalanx on the Type 21s..."
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 21 June 2019, 10:33:24
Checking the dreadnought auctions, I don't see an option for overnight shipping... curses.

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1221/3420/products/koenig700_1024x1024.jpg?v=1484661763)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 21 June 2019, 11:43:23
That's because it's an oversize package

Look for the "Philadelphia Experiment" option

They may not have it in your area though. I hear it's quite limited availability...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 21 June 2019, 11:58:10
I wonder if you could get a job with Amazon's delivery service if you had a dreadnought? You could do express deliveries to addresses within a 20ish mile radius of the warehouse.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 21 June 2019, 18:06:05
I think the accerlation of the package thru the gun would turn your product into junk even more than the delivery person who don't care about your package.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 22 June 2019, 08:38:09
HMS Dragon on the prowl.

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=53211)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: God and Davion on 22 June 2019, 14:26:51
Lovely ship. And you can see the dragons painted in each side of the bow. Fitting.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 26 June 2019, 14:10:56
MASSIVE CGI of a Nelson-class battleship. Big link here: http://i.imgur.com/OUEjFen.jpg

How (in)accurate is it?

I just love the armoured conning tower design for pure badass looks.

(https://i.postimg.cc/4y8xdHDZ/OUEjFen.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: God and Davion on 26 June 2019, 16:56:47
  At a first glance, it is a good representation of the ship in 1942-1943. It has a Pom Pom in the "B" Turret and it lacks the host of Bofors/Oerlikons in the deck.

  However, I am not sure if the last turret has the correct AAA layout. It should have 3 oerlikons in 3 tubs and I only see 2 (I am not 100% sure if it is only 2 or 3 tubs). That's The only thing I don't see accurate.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Euphonium on 26 June 2019, 17:40:14
Totally accurate or not, it's a beautiful piece of work
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 29 June 2019, 09:38:56
The PCS-USS Indianapolis (LCS-17) is on the prowl, conducting it's trials.

(https://www.naval-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/06/USS-Indianapolis-LCS.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 29 June 2019, 09:44:25
Another thing,  future John F. Kennedy had it's 588 ton bridge/superstructure added to it at end of May.

Here speed-up vid of them adding it to the hull in the the article on Naval Technology. (https://www.naval-technology.com/news/hii-island-uss-john-f-kennedy/)

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=53271)

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 01 July 2019, 10:44:38
I saw a article make its way into a Field Artillery group about how the Navy is thinking about reactivating old Battleships . . . headline did not talk about NGS, but that would be the only reason (unless we are getting some crocodile like aliens invading) and the mission reminded me of the Fighter Mafia's hate for the CAS mission & A-10.  I did not look at the article b/c to me it was pretty much click bate- they were retired for a reason; when the Iowa lost a gun they did not repair it so no parts for the future; crew requirements w/dead end tech; bomb/missile magnet; expense to operate vs multiple hulls and more.

I think there is a need for a gun/rocket using hull for NGS for both the Army & Marines, but its just not something the Navy wants.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 01 July 2019, 11:01:36
https://www.facebook.com/1510752248960251/posts/2447099058658894/

IJN Heavy Cruiser Maya has been found.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DaveMac on 01 July 2019, 12:17:11
https://www.facebook.com/1510752248960251/posts/2447099058658894/

IJN Heavy Cruiser Maya has been found.

Summary of Petral's discoveries

https://paulallen.com/Indepth/Petrel/#discoveries

Very impressive

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: beachhead1985 on 01 July 2019, 12:48:48
I saw a article make its way into a Field Artillery group about how the Navy is thinking about reactivating old Battleships . . . headline did not talk about NGS, but that would be the only reason (unless we are getting some crocodile like aliens invading) and the mission reminded me of the Fighter Mafia's hate for the CAS mission & A-10.  I did not look at the article b/c to me it was pretty much click bate- they were retired for a reason; when the Iowa lost a gun they did not repair it so no parts for the future; crew requirements w/dead end tech; bomb/missile magnet; expense to operate vs multiple hulls and more.

I think there is a need for a gun/rocket using hull for NGS for both the Army & Marines, but its just not something the Navy wants.

That's click-bait.

The Battleships are gone-gone-gone and never coming back and no reason (now) to bring them back-as-is.

Something *like* that? Yeah. But American Defence Research is incapable of producing that.

We *could* with modern tech produce something with the attributes of a modern BattleShip; that being #1 durability; we could make a big scary ship that is born to take hits from Russian AntiShip weapons. No one will though. Taking hits isn't sexy, which drives A LOT of modern weapons procurement. #2 we could provide modern, effective shore bombardment...but we won't. The US Navy doesn't want that job for their ships. Not sexy; ties them to the Army and Marines, "That's what the Carriers are for".

If anyone, anywhere ever turtles in well-built fortifications on a well-placed island we cannot ignore or bypass, it's going to be a very bad time for the Navies and Airforces of the world, as-is.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 01 July 2019, 13:31:07
A few treads back I brought up the idea of making a "shore support ship" which would arguably be sort of a pocket battleship. 5-10,000 tons, 2x2 6" or 8" guns, lots of CIWS and short-range AA, enough armor plating to soak AGTMs and tank gun fire.

To keep the cost and weight down it would sacrifice a lot of electronics, sensors, and speed. It would essentially be a modern version of the old RN shore bombardment monitors.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 01 July 2019, 14:03:49
Yeah, I want to say we had this topic 4 or 5 years ago and I would reinterate what I said then . . . they would not use 6" or 8" guns, they are not produced any longer for the USN that I am aware of- or in the Army, who used to have 8in howitzers.  So you go with the 155mm IMO and use the characteristics and design of the Crusader system where a single tube could fire 8 rounds for a ToT mission depending of course on range.  Supplement this with MLRS turrets and you can get a powerful bombardment ability using current systems and ammo . . .

 . . . but we all know how procurement happens!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2019, 17:12:26
What used to be the "Armed Forces Journal" (it's changed names a number of time in its history) once published an article by a Navy Engineering Duty Officer who explained in great detail why the battleships weren't coming back.  To say the least, he was very convincing.

No fortification can withstand what bomb designers can come up with.  Seriously, there used to be a design that used artillery tubes for casing (I saw the video in a museum). They lost the first one because it went so deep into the dirt, they couldn't find it.  Purpose built?  It can only get better.  And seriously, if all else fails, there are always tac-nukes.  No amount of reinforced concrete can take that.  If it detonated a couple of hundred feet underground, I bet world opinion wouldn't even blink.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 01 July 2019, 17:36:34
They used decommissioned 8in artillery barrels.  As much as I am in favor of tac usage, its not politically viable.  Restoring the battleships are also not tactically or strategically viable

The problem with bombs is pretty simple . . . they are very expensive to deliver for guided munitions, and those penetrators CAN be defeated.  Its also a waste on a crew-served weapon pillbox.  Naval Gunfire Support is still a reality no matter what the techies in the Navy want, and for delivering HE on target (or FAE for rockets?) gun & rocket artillery is cheaper than air-delivered bombs.  A light-cruiser type ship is cheaper to operate than a carrier, and certainly risks fewer people.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 01 July 2019, 17:48:09
They used decommissioned 8in artillery barrels.  As much as I am in favor of tac usage, its not politically viable.  Restoring the battleships are also not tactically or strategically viable

The problem with bombs is pretty simple . . . they are very expensive to deliver for guided munitions, and those penetrators CAN be defeated.  Its also a waste on a crew-served weapon pillbox.  Naval Gunfire Support is still a reality no matter what the techies in the Navy want, and for delivering HE on target (or FAE for rockets?) gun & rocket artillery is cheaper than air-delivered bombs.  A light-cruiser type ship is cheaper to operate than a carrier, and certainly risks fewer people.


It feels to me as though a better solution to the problem of naval gunfire support in the modern era would be to use a fairly light weight hull (I'm thinking mine countermeasures vessel sort of thing) that could have slot in modules with a 155mm artillery tube or two for when NGS is needed but the hull can be used for patrol type work the rest of the time (I know this might not work for the USN with their split of roles for policing type work with the USCG)


I would call this a monitor but it might fulfil the need in a way that a battleship would be overkill for - think MGS versus MBT
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2019, 18:23:16
Not to skirt Rule 4, but I think the definition of "politically viable" has changed since BattleTech came on the scene...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 01 July 2019, 18:35:11
Back to the Pictures...

USS Virginia CGN-38
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mNZgOtJlRC4/VWuOVKTOTwI/AAAAAAAAEW4/svXtfgFilKs/s1600/virginia%2B02.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 01 July 2019, 18:48:38
Speaking of Cruisers...I randomly ran into this one without a mentioning of which one it is.

Anybody know?

(https://i.imgur.com/8SAwPWF.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ghost0402 on 01 July 2019, 19:10:48
Speaking of Cruisers...I randomly ran into this one without a mentioning of which one it is.

Anybody know?

(https://i.imgur.com/8SAwPWF.jpg)
Could be one of three ships of the Konigsburg class cruisers.  Konigsburg, Karlsruhe, or Koln.

Edit: World of Warships Forum has it tagged as the Karlsruhe.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 01 July 2019, 19:11:28
There are arguments for and against tac nukes. Both have merit. Which stance is adopted by TPTB, depends ultimately on Congress, whatever the JCS may suggest. So you see where this goes. 'N that's all I have to say 'bout dat...

Re: NGFS - unless the hypersonic sabot project takes off big and makes big guns viable again, the only remaining viable bombardment options are not guns. They are:

1) the Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Georgia (I love that mnemonic) and their Tomahawks

or

2) the carriers and their GBU-dropping aircraft

Back to the Pictures...

USS Virginia CGN-38
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mNZgOtJlRC4/VWuOVKTOTwI/AAAAAAAAEW4/svXtfgFilKs/s1600/virginia%2B02.jpg)
Someone give me the low-down on why the Virginias had so much open deck space and apparently so few weapons.

I know it was the naval F-35 furore of the times. I just want to know more details. (Which I'm lazy to Google and summarise myself.)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 01 July 2019, 19:23:30
Nuclear propulsion is HEAVY... that would be my bet...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: beachhead1985 on 01 July 2019, 20:20:28

Re: NGFS - unless the hypersonic sabot project takes off big and makes big guns viable again...

What makes big guns non-viable is that we no-longer have ANY of the infrastructure to make a gun like that anymore. Part of the draw of rail guns is that they DO NOT need a barrel like that. So its those or something like a Long Barrel/Low Pressure gun.


Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 01 July 2019, 21:35:01
Which is why I said 155mm, which is what the Army went to when they retired the 8in/203mm . . . which just now . . . duh, math, means its pretty much a 6in gun but metric & NATO and all that . . .

They used those large calibers b/c that is what it took to drive them the distance, penetrate armor and deliver a payload.  You do not need those 'big' guns any more for that work because of advances in fillers but guns & rockets are still needed.  Look at the sortie cost, loiter time over target, limited number of penetrators carried in inventory, aircraft maintenance requirements, cost per ton of HE, and other metrics . . . today's carriers cannot mount air ops to replicate WWII let alone Vietnam era (hey Newport News & BBs) NGFS.  Without going into rocket assist rounds, your looking at a modern 155mm Artillery & 270mm MLRS system being able to put rounds on target 15 or so miles which will be beyond reach of shore based torpedo attacks.  The MLRS could do prep fire at 40 miles with the right rockets (or longer with other rounds) and if need be could contribute to a cruise missile attack with a ATACMS (missile) attack at 100+ miles.

Simple ship design would be 2 double or triple turrets forward, 2 broadside MLRS (stowed unless firing), and another turret aft with a helo pad.  Give either a AA or ASW secondary role and the USN still gets its another use for it in escorting Amphib groups.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 01 July 2019, 21:35:24
Oh, ship picture!

(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/65450848_2536469263063807_8485266406500204544_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQkCnN1-CHyJoCZs2KEQ5JNLAYu-jhgyouQFNHJt3IFhBlSGedn5yfk5xSJlQWNfebY&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=24aa74f1b64ca0f54cfe714cee5fa881&oe=5DBBCF54)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ruger on 01 July 2019, 21:38:37
Oh, ship picture!

(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/65450848_2536469263063807_8485266406500204544_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQkCnN1-CHyJoCZs2KEQ5JNLAYu-jhgyouQFNHJt3IFhBlSGedn5yfk5xSJlQWNfebY&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=24aa74f1b64ca0f54cfe714cee5fa881&oe=5DBBCF54)

Ah, USS Laffey. I’ve been aboard her several times down at Patriots Point.

I need to get back out there the next time I’m visiting a customer for a few days.

Ruger
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 01 July 2019, 22:13:50
Look at the sortie cost, loiter time over target, limited number of penetrators carried in inventory, aircraft maintenance requirements, cost per ton of HE, and other metrics . . . today's carriers cannot mount air ops to replicate WWII let alone Vietnam era (hey Newport News & BBs) NGFS.
WW2 and even Vietnam era effects per munition expended computations are, I think, a magnitude or so removed from now.

How many 16-inch shells would Iowa need to blast a grid square worth of enemy tanks out in the open? How many Nam era Mk.82 Snake-eyes?

Compare to today, how many SDB II glide bombs? (I... can't bring myself to use its name...)

Quote
Without going into rocket assist rounds, your looking at a modern 155mm Artillery (snip) being able to put rounds on target 15 or so miles which will be beyond reach of shore based torpedo attacks.
Leaving aside the missile story, which is well addressed by cruise missile development... Charlie 6 once had a lot to say about that 15 mile range.

155mm Vulcano supposedly can reach up to 120km. Supposedly. My 2 cents: you need at least that much stand-off range to not worry about Harpoonski shore batteries. Hence IMO the only real hope is for that 300km+ hypersonic sabot round they're supposedly developing.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 01 July 2019, 23:18:44
Not sure you are getting my post, I agreed the Battleship article was click bait- that barring a really odd and drastic set of circumstances they would never be commissioned again.  What I suggested would be better for Naval Gunfire Support would be a light cruiser-sized vessel using off the self (or like the Crusader, researched but cancelled), current inventory systems and munitions to meet the requirement.  Give it some ASW or AA capability (I am in favor of AA) and it serves a dual purpose in Amphib TFs.

A single MLRS battery of the time, 9 launchers, wrecked a brigade in a grid square+ as I understand Desert Storm firing standard munitions- DPICM- which is a rocket & shell munitions that is like Rockeyes.  Charlie 6's experience IIRC is with towed?  I was referencing the canceled Crusader program which was said to put 8 rounds on the same target ToT b/c of the ballistics computer & stabilization- I totally grant you its not doing it from 15 miles.

MLRS is not cruise missiles, its a LOT cheaper- Multiple Launch Rocket System.  They can fire a single missile instead of a 6 pack of rockets which is why I gave a rough range for it, but we also joked about them being million dollar mistakes if you got anything wrong in the set up.

NGFS is not about suppressing defense installations once, its about providing on call fire support for Marines (or the Army) while they do not have their own batteries ashore.  Your cruise missiles and airstrikes suppress the anti-ship sites and then the gun cruiser moves into range while you send forces ashore.  Cruise missile strikes are not suited to on call fire- because like I said its a expensive round- both because of time of response and accuracy for danger close.  They are also not reloaded quickly into many of the best first strike platforms.  Air strikes are fine, but they are not going to be on station around the clock and the carrier itself will have its combat capabilities degraded or may be called away.

Just a couple of quick numbers . . . the cost per round of the latest unguided 155mm shell is 1k, the GPS guided 155mm shell is 30k but supposed to be accurate out to 40k but I cannot find if that is with rocket assist or base bleed.  The 227mm Rockets have a couple of different options for the payload- like HE or DPICM- but the unguided cost I could not find but obviously less than guided and the latest guided out to 40 miles for a cost of 90k a pod (15k per), and the ATACMS as I said were supposed to be a mil a bang.

By comparison, each Tomahawk costs $832k . . . a Mk 82 half ton bomb costs 2k but it costs per DoD 30k an hour to fly the F-35A (probably close for the C) and 11k an hour to fly a Super Hornet.  A cruiser or destroyer will be cheaper to operate than a carrier but the submarine operating as a Tomahawk platform might be cheaper to operate than a surface combatant.

As far as anti-ship missiles . . . yeah, it can happen but just like WWII destroyers and cruisers moved in for NGFS, you develop a doctrine to minimize those risks (like firing DPICM at launch sites at 40 miles to suppress).

Btw that rail gun?  On a ship its still going to have to get within 5 miles (more like 3.1 at sea level) to fire on a shore based target . . . and IIRC its going to be a vastly different danger close situation.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 02 July 2019, 02:17:46
Not sure you are getting my post

Oh I agree fully with what you say; plus you pointed out the MLRS which is true, I had forgotten that; the Marines recently tested its use from deck-mounted HIMARS and it dovetails nicely with the new Tactical Missile program

Quote
the latest guided out to 40 miles for a cost of 90k a pod (15k per), and the ATACMS as I said were supposed to be a mil a bang.
I'm surprised if guided MLRS is only 15k per, even a JDAM kit is about twice that

Tomahawk is more than $1m by now I think, inflation and all

But it gets really complicated to start factoring platform costs and so on

Quote
As far as anti-ship missiles . . . yeah, it can happen but just like WWII destroyers and cruisers moved in for NGFS, you develop a doctrine to minimize those risks (like firing DPICM at launch sites at 40 miles to suppress).
Just pointing out the standoff range necessary

Quote
Btw that rail gun?  On a ship its still going to have to get within 5 miles (more like 3.1 at sea level) to fire on a shore based target . . . and IIRC its going to be a vastly different danger close situation.
it's not going to be a flat trajectory weapon, but a method of boosting naval artillery range to pretty incredible distances
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 02 July 2019, 03:53:05
The current price of GMLRS rockets (basis: March 2019 contract) is 115,000 USD, cost of 1/6th pod included.

As for Vulcano - since it was mentioned - the idea is not about "15 miles inshore from outside the range of torpedos", but about "50 miles inshore from outside territorial waters". It is also subcaliber - basically a unitary 90mm warhead with about the throw weight of a 120mm mortar shell and the volume of fire and sustain of a mortar platoon selectable straight from your artillery network; in direct support of troops always guided precision strike since at 3-minute flight times you can't exactly walk the rounds on target.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 02 July 2019, 09:25:49
Surprise!

(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/hms-surprise-chris-selby.jpg)

No, i mean HMS Surprise (formerly known as HMS Rose, replica of a British 20-gun sixth-rate post ship.

She now in San Diego, she was used in the film Master and Commander: The Far side of the World.  She was rebuilt for the film, but museum bought it from the 20th Century fox, now she restored to be able sail once again.  This picture is from 2014, i hope she in better shape than that.  You can see the aging exSoviet Submarine, the B-39, behind her at the Maritime Museum she displaced at.

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 02 July 2019, 10:35:32
The current price of GMLRS rockets (basis: March 2019 contract) is 115,000 USD, cost of 1/6th pod included.

As for Vulcano - since it was mentioned - the idea is not about "15 miles inshore from outside the range of torpedos", but about "50 miles inshore from outside territorial waters". It is also subcaliber - basically a unitary 90mm warhead with about the throw weight of a 120mm mortar shell and the volume of fire and sustain of a mortar platoon selectable straight from your artillery network; in direct support of troops always guided precision strike since at 3-minute flight times you can't exactly walk the rounds on target.

Okay so I might have been misreading the price, I found 90k but was basing that on the full pod so it becomes 15k per round.  Lol, trying to find the prices I kept getting estimated ranges which I know but could not find any current prices.

And yeah, FOs can still walk that fire in even with 3 minute flights . . . 'Shot, over' . . . 'Splash' . . . "up 3, left 20, over" . . . and by God do not say repeat until you mean it.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 02 July 2019, 19:20:52
(https://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/showphoto.aspx?photoid=2170522)
USS Milwaukee (LCS-5) as she passing locks in Canada as she making her way out to the Atlantic in 2015
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 02 July 2019, 22:15:54
I did not know battleships were this fat.

(https://i.postimg.cc/cCT33x12/VhYDZKJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: dgorsman on 02 July 2019, 22:56:06
Keep forgetting it was normal for large ships of that era to carry a float plane or two.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 02 July 2019, 23:24:50
Helped with stability for the guns . . . if a 16 is knockin, the boat will be rockin.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 02 July 2019, 23:33:25
BB got aft.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Feenix74 on 03 July 2019, 00:57:06
If my memory serves me correctly, the USN BBs were designed to fit through the Panama Canal, which limited them to being able to fit through the 34 m wide locks of the Panama Canal.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Missouri_panama_canal.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 03 July 2019, 01:30:23
There's about twelve inches of clearance on either side of that.  And of course there's the length requirement as well, gotta fit between the locks. 

Do ships in the Gatun lake transiting through the canal operate on their own power, or are they under tow?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Elmoth on 03 July 2019, 02:14:05
There's about twelve inches of clearance on either side of that.  And of course there's the length requirement as well, gotta fit between the locks. 

That is some tight fit!!!  :o
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 03 July 2019, 02:40:59
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--S-WvK8H4--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/jq3ic3rrwcyccah8rch4.jpg)

Quote
The Iowa Class Battleships were the widest ships to ever traverse the canals, with a beam of 108 feet against the canal's width of just 110 feet, leaving only inches to spare on either side.
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/iowa-class-battleships-are-the-widest-ships-to-ever-use-1680273877

Literally 12 inches on either side.

Don't fall down there.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 03 July 2019, 04:55:10
All ships up to WW2 were designed to fit thru the Panama Canal with a max beam of 108 feet. Essex and Iowas were the largest ships to fit. There was a idea to make the locks larger so the Midway and Montana class ships could move thru. That design of the larger locks has yet to still come together. Only a Panamax container ship and Cruise Ships are larger than the Iowa class to pass thru.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 03 July 2019, 06:45:28
Actually they built them, the New Panamax locks are operating.  1401ft/427m length, 180ft/55m beam, and 60ft/18m draft.  Still can't push CVNs through them because they're too tall to clear the bridges and the beam overhang would be knocking cranes and other dockside equipment around, and we keep those pretty localized as far as the Pacific and Atlantic go anyway.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 03 July 2019, 07:00:15
Not much details have come out, but since no one spoke of it. There was fire on Monday aboard a secretive Russian Nuclear-Submarine, Losharik (AS-12)  as reported on USNI's news section. (https://news.usni.org/2019/07/02/14-sailors-die-on-secretive-russian-nuclear-submarine)  14 sailors lost their lives when fire happened, they managed to put the fires and the ship was towed back to the Northern Fleet navalbase. Terrible thing they died, but they saved their fellow shipmates, my heart goes out to their families.

(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Z80RR.jpg)

The ship was among the secret/hushup leftovers from the Cold War Era, but they're still in use.  The Losharik was meant for Special Ops, though what kind research it was doing we may not know.  It was said it was originally intended to tap into communication cables that lay below on the ocean bottom, which would make sense. More recently, the ship was reported doing research in the Arctic Ocean. What is interesting to me, this is a 2,000 ton nuclear submarine that uses a modified Delta-III Stretched SSBN to act as the mothership to it and apparently other small SSNs.  I had heard of the Delta III Stretch submarine, but like anyone with publicly available information, not clarify why it was stretched.

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=53333)
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=53331)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 03 July 2019, 07:22:13
Damn.  "The fire was extinguished “thanks to the self-sacrificing actions of the team,” the ministry said."  What I've heard before, amongst the submarine service, "whatever you do, you save the boat" is the mindset.  I imagine it'd be the same over there.

After watching the funeral aboard Glomar Explorer, I do wonder what the Russian service is.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 03 July 2019, 10:07:59
Its not just subs, its a rule among all naval vessels afaik-  I saw a yellowed piece of paper pinned up on the BB-35 Texas that admonished crew members that if the ship was hit, a crewman's best chance to save his buddies was to save the ship.

For the Panama Canal, they are under tow afaik (some of the old black & white photos posted earlier on what refit it was with US BBs showed tows) since it reduces their wakes somewhat.  Ship wakes cause erosion on the Lake and IIRC they have had to take steps over the decades to combat that to keep things clear.

Apparently in the western Pacific . . .

(https://pressfrom.info/upload/images/real/2019/07/03/pentagon-says-china-missile-test-in-south-china-sea-disturbing__182765_.jpg?content=1)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 03 July 2019, 10:43:50
Its not just subs, its a rule among all naval vessels afaik-  I saw a yellowed piece of paper pinned up on the BB-35 Texas that admonished crew members that if the ship was hit, a crewman's best chance to save his buddies was to save the ship.

For the Panama Canal, they are under tow afaik (some of the old black & white photos posted earlier on what refit it was with US BBs showed tows) since it reduces their wakes somewhat.  Ship wakes cause erosion on the Lake and IIRC they have had to take steps over the decades to combat that to keep things clear.

Apparently in the western Pacific . . .

(https://pressfrom.info/upload/images/real/2019/07/03/pentagon-says-china-missile-test-in-south-china-sea-disturbing__182765_.jpg?content=1)

Nice photos with the islands on the other side.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 03 July 2019, 11:20:55
Yeah, I am not sure its not something off with the photo . . the news story had the ships reversed (sailing to the left side), and if you look at the amphib in the front the numbers are wrong.  But this was in the images . . .
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 03 July 2019, 12:40:31
The picture i think is reversed.   

As for the Iowa Squeeze play through the Panama Canal.   Here top view of Missiouri with the Large Cruiser USS Alaska aka only modern American Battlecruiser Class built.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29_and_USS_Alaska_%28CB-1%29_at_Norfolk%2C_Virginia%2C_1944.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ghost0402 on 03 July 2019, 15:37:01
I did not know battleships were this fat.

(https://i.postimg.cc/cCT33x12/VhYDZKJ.jpg)

The South Dakota's were stubby.  So they seem fatter than they are.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DaveMac on 04 July 2019, 06:19:58
Not much details have come out, but since no one spoke of it. There was fire on Monday aboard a secretive Russian Nuclear-Submarine, Losharik (AS-12)  as reported on USNI's news section. (https://news.usni.org/2019/07/02/14-sailors-die-on-secretive-russian-nuclear-submarine)  14 sailors lost their lives when fire happened, they managed to put the fires and the ship was towed back to the Northern Fleet navalbase. Terrible thing they died, but they saved their fellow shipmates, my heart goes out to their families.

(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Z80RR.jpg)

The ship was among the secret/hushup leftovers from the Cold War Era, but they're still in use.  The Losharik was meant for Special Ops, though what kind research it was doing we may not know.  It was said it was originally intended to tap into communication cables that lay below on the ocean bottom, which would make sense. More recently, the ship was reported doing research in the Arctic Ocean. What is interesting to me, this is a 2,000 ton nuclear submarine that uses a modified Delta-III Stretched SSBN to act as the mothership to it and apparently other small SSNs.  I had heard of the Delta III Stretch submarine, but like anyone with publicly available information, not clarify why it was stretched.

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=53333)
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=53331)

Apparently the picture is from Top Gear  :D

https://www.businessinsider.com/top-gear-russia-published-image-of-classified-submarine-2015-1?r=US&IR=T


Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 05 July 2019, 04:08:20
Its not just subs, its a rule among all naval vessels afaik-  I saw a yellowed piece of paper pinned up on the BB-35 Texas that admonished crew members that if the ship was hit, a crewman's best chance to save his buddies was to save the ship.

For the Panama Canal, they are under tow afaik (some of the old black & white photos posted earlier on what refit it was with US BBs showed tows) since it reduces their wakes somewhat.  Ship wakes cause erosion on the Lake and IIRC they have had to take steps over the decades to combat that to keep things clear.

It's a truism of damage control, save the ship, save your mates. The ocean is an unforgiving place and sailors need to look after each other. One of the crewmen on HMS Nottingham shored himself into a compartment saving her from Wolfe rock, had to have his meals passed down to him, that's serious balls right there. He came out alright, but had to have meals passed down to him until they got into port.

Ships can travel under their own power without causing a wake, it's really not that hard to do, you just need to go slow. The big ships going through the canal would be towed because it evens out their movement, provided the tug can keep moving in a relatively straight line. If you want to keep your canal clear, you need to dredge it, just like harbours and passages, the simple movement of water will deposit silt that you need to dig out or it will build up, whether a ship is underway or not is largely irrelevant to the process.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: beachhead1985 on 05 July 2019, 23:10:16

The ship was among the secret/hushup leftovers from the Cold War Era, but they're still in use.  The Losharik was meant for Special Ops, though what kind research it was doing we may not know.  It was said it was originally intended to tap into communication cables that lay below on the ocean bottom, which would make sense. More recently, the ship was reported doing research in the Arctic Ocean. What is interesting to me, this is a 2,000 ton nuclear submarine that uses a modified Delta-III Stretched SSBN to act as the mothership to it and apparently other small SSNs.  I had heard of the Delta III Stretch submarine, but like anyone with publicly available information, not clarify why it was stretched.

Are these the ones with treads to putter around the seafloor, as the swedes reported around those cables and sensors as late as the 80s?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Sabelkatten on 06 July 2019, 03:14:01
Most likely there never were any subs with threads. In fact the best evidence was traced back to an experimental Swedish minisub (often crept along soft bottoms, wide prop left traces like tracks).

There almost certainly were Russian minisubs, but all the ones known are conventional designs of <100 tons.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 06 July 2019, 03:21:20
Are these the ones with treads to putter around the seafloor, as the swedes reported around those cables and sensors as late as the 80s?
No, it's newer, doesn't have treads. Does have skids though.

Check out the writeup from the inestimable H I Sutton: http://www.hisutton.com/Spy%20Sub%20-%20Project%2010831%20Losharik.html
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 06 July 2019, 09:31:40
(http://www.hisutton.com/images/WP-18Weaps.jpg)

(http://www.hisutton.com/images/WP18_air.jpg)

http://www.hisutton.com/WP-18%20Tactical%20Strike%20Craft.html

The Rabid Foxes, DEST, Loki, and the Death Commandos would like 50 each!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Cannonshop on 06 July 2019, 09:56:28
(http://www.hisutton.com/images/WP-18Weaps.jpg)

(http://www.hisutton.com/images/WP18_air.jpg)

http://www.hisutton.com/WP-18%20Tactical%20Strike%20Craft.html

The Rabid Foxes, DEST, Loki, and the Death Commandos would like 50 each!

blasting the "Miami Vice" soundtrack probably ruins the surprise.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 06 July 2019, 11:39:13
Pretty sure I saw that in the McHale's Navy movie, and at least three late-night shows in the 90s...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 06 July 2019, 12:11:22
blasting the "Miami Vice" soundtrack probably ruins the surprise.

No, it totally works.

They can't hear you coming over all the 80s music that somebody's playing.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 06 July 2019, 13:14:45
Masks the distinctive sound signature on sonar of the engines
You can always confuse them by playing other songs, perhaps something from HMS Pinafore
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Dragon Cat on 06 July 2019, 13:39:44
One I found online looks cool
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 06 July 2019, 15:52:35

You can always confuse them by playing other songs
In Soviet Russia music plays you!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 06 July 2019, 19:15:36
One I found online looks cool
Suddenly I want to really screw with sonar techs.  Get a really good sound system with a very heavily sound-insulated generator up on the deck away from the water, and pootle around pumping out a nice long loop of a diesel submarine's engine.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: nerd on 06 July 2019, 20:18:35
Suddenly I want to really screw with sonar techs.  Get a really good sound system with a very heavily sound-insulated generator up on the deck away from the water, and pootle around pumping out a nice long loop of a diesel submarine's engine.
Congratulations, it existed and was called MOSS.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 07 July 2019, 00:10:02
Masks the distinctive sound signature on sonar of the engines
You can always confuse them by playing other songs, perhaps something from HMS Pinafore

How about The Pirates of Penzance?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 07 July 2019, 00:15:25
Yeah, but when you've got a three-master gliding around in the water to the sound of submarine diesels, that's the part where the sonar tech starts wondering where the other ship is. :D

That said, I wonder whether or not you could get a good copy of the sound of a torpedo tube flooding, door opening, and firing, for your underwater speakers...

Congratulations, it existed and was called MOSS.
Didn't MOSS also have the bubble generators to make a nice big water-air boundary to bounce active sonar off of?  Combine that with Prarie/Masker for your main ships, it probably did well.

They're not still using P/M are they?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 07 July 2019, 13:07:51
Marauder, are those go-fast boats from Drug runners or they something else?  They certainty don't look military in the conventional sense.

For something completely different.

Take a train ride via Ferry Ship....
(http://www.harwichanddovercourt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Train_Ferry_No_1-1917.jpg)
This is the English Train Ferry No1, in 1917.  This ship in the picture was in Harwick as part the Hawick Train Ferry service.  It used to cross the English Channel to Belgium before World War 2 came around.  Last ferrys were decommissioned in 1981.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 07 July 2019, 13:48:18
In Soviet Russia music plays you!


Suddenly I want to really screw with sonar techs.  Get a really good sound system with a very heavily sound-insulated generator up on the deck away from the water, and pootle around pumping out a nice long loop of a diesel submarine's engine.


Play Red October sound track and pretend to be a Russian?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 07 July 2019, 14:47:34
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iys9mNufYpQ
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Euphonium on 09 July 2019, 16:57:47
Those WWI German battleships on ebay did finally sell!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-48920904 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-48920904)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 09 July 2019, 17:17:36
(https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Last-Cruise-for-French-Rubis-class-SSN-Saphir-Suffren-About-to-Take-Over-1.jpg)
France's Rubis-Class Attack Submarine, FS Saphir, has been arrived to be decommissioned.  She first of her class of Nuclear Attack Submarines to be retired to make way for the new Suffren-Class Attack Boats.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: nerd on 09 July 2019, 17:59:47
She's one of the older Western boats in commission, as the 688's of the same age (1984 commissioning) are rapidly being removed from service. I wonder what will happen to the reactor, as the French do not have a location like Idaho or Siberia to store old reactors.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 09 July 2019, 18:40:28
I wonder what will happen to the reactor, as the French do not have a location like Idaho or Siberia to store old reactors.
Actually they do. Homet.

Zone du Homet is a military installation that's part of Cherbourg harbour - next door to where DCNS/Naval Group constructs the French nuclear submarines. Homet was repurposed 20 years ago and now serves solely for the dismantling and temporary storage of nuclear components of submarines; they're currently storing the six reactor sections (full sections, 700 tons each) of the Redoubtable class SSBNs.

Dismantling and storage:

(https://abload.de/img/dismantling-level-ii-i9kak.jpg)(https://abload.de/img/dismantling-level-ii-kxj8q.jpg)

That is also why Saphir sailed to Cherbourg on her last cruise. Once she's decommissioned she'll be cut open at Homet, have the reactor pulled for storage and the remaining sections will then be welded together seaworthy (!) again to be moved to separate storage for the non-nuclear parts. The "surgery" takes around three months.

There's a long-term concept to take apart and dispose of the stored reactors ("Level III Dismantling") after a while "once a facility has been built for that" on site, at Homet.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 09 July 2019, 19:59:17
Can one be named the Succotash?  Just for the name alone.

(https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Last-Cruise-for-French-Rubis-class-SSN-Saphir-Suffren-About-to-Take-Over-1.jpg)
France's Rubis-Class Attack Submarine, FS Saphir, has been arrived to be decommissioned.  She first of her class of Nuclear Attack Submarines to be retired to make way for the new Suffren-Class Attack Boats.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 09 July 2019, 20:22:20
The six Barracudas (Suffren class) will be Suffren, Duguay-Trouin, Tourville, De Grasse, Rubis and Casabianca.

The names have been consistently used for ships of the French Navy since the 1780s - except for De Grasse, who only had a cruiser and a destroyer named after him so far. Rubis is the record-holder, with this being the 18th ship (and 4th submarine) of this name since 1648. It's also the only one of the above six names not derived from a 17th or 18th century admiral.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 09 July 2019, 23:13:56
Can one be named the Succotash?  Just for the name alone.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 10 July 2019, 12:26:40
Speaking of funny ship names, HMS Cockchafer.  Old British Gunship as part of the Insect Class Gunships.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/HMS_Cockchafer_WWII_IWM_FL_022629.jpg)
I believe this naming practice has been retired....since ships not quite pictured was HMS Cricket, HMS Glowworm AND HMS Cicada..

She was armed originally, 2 × BL 6 inch Mk VII, 2 × 12 pdr. guns and 6 × .303 British Maxim guns in 1916, but she was rearmed with modern weapons in 1938.  Interesting design, very usual names her and classmates.

She her most notable actions was in occupied China in 1926, where a British merchant ships were being captured by a local warlord named General Yang in what was called the Wanhsien District.  The ship was part of squadron of British ships, and soldiers attempting get the ships back and stop the General.  They succeeded but there were causalities. 

It's interesting dig on the ship i look up randomly.  :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 11 July 2019, 01:25:32
More ships gone missing.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/two-shipwrecks-vanished-near-malaysia
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 11 July 2019, 03:05:44
Those moments when you wish horror movies and the results of defiling graves were real...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 11 July 2019, 04:19:09
Not... not much I can say.

https://twitter.com/Intrepid_Sailor/status/1147376424476655617
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 11 July 2019, 11:23:52
Those moments when you wish horror movies and the results of defiling graves were real...

Read the story . . . 100 times this . . .

But I am a history buff, and so sadly this is not a new thing where people tear up relics of the past . . . think of the Roman ruins that were 'mined' for structures in the Middle Ages.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 11 July 2019, 19:32:36
Not... not much I can say.

https://twitter.com/Intrepid_Sailor/status/1147376424476655617
BEST... BREAKAWAY SONG... EVER!!!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 11 July 2019, 21:56:31
Read the story . . . 100 times this . . .

But I am a history buff, and so sadly this is not a new thing where people tear up relics of the past . . . think of the Roman ruins that were 'mined' for structures in the Middle Ages.
I hope they capture the thugs.  This problem of finding all these wrecks.  There jerks out there will use data to abuse it.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 11 July 2019, 23:57:19
But I am a history buff, and so sadly this is not a new thing where people tear up relics of the past . . . think of the Roman ruins that were 'mined' for structures in the Middle Ages.
To be fair, the Roman ruins weren't any more interesting to the medieval folks than the old, run down city block that got leveled for redevelopment.  Defiling war graves for profit in the 21st century?  Satan's digging an exploratory trench for something under Cocytus.  (And likely making a special floaty chair for me in Styx)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 12 July 2019, 04:24:40
To be fair, the Roman ruins weren't any more interesting to the medieval folks than the old, run down city block that got leveled for redevelopment.
You historically don't need that much time difference. We have medieval monasteries around here that were reused as stone quarries for other construction within 50 years of no longer being used. And those are gravesites.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 12 July 2019, 04:37:32
To be fair, the Roman ruins weren't any more interesting to the medieval folks than the old, run down city block that got leveled for redevelopment.  Defiling war graves for profit in the 21st century?  Satan's digging an exploratory trench for something under Cocytus.  (And likely making a special floaty chair for me in Styx)

Ok, you're judging by a false metric, this isn't being done by mega corporations bent of defiling war graves, it's being done by small communities with little in the way of money and resources except unemployed people.

South East Asia is a very poor region of the world, while I can never agree with defiling war graves, I can't judge people harshly for using all available resources just to provide the necessities of life.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 12 July 2019, 04:44:40
It's sad, but there it is. Nightlord01 is right.

Contributory also is that locals may not value the wrecks as highly as the ships are not theirs. Matter of fact.

It would be nice to be able to say all fallen servicemen could be recovered and repatriated, but not even their home nations have the resources.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 12 July 2019, 07:13:09
It takes more than unemployed people to salvage ships on the sea bed.  Those communities would have been far better served investing the resources it took to do the illegal salvage operations in themselves.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Nightlord01 on 12 July 2019, 09:01:11
It takes more than unemployed people to salvage ships on the sea bed.  Those communities would have been far better served investing the resources it took to do the illegal salvage operations in themselves.

Not really, no. Maybe a boat, which has been re-tasked from their fishing, some rope, which the fishermen loaned out, a gas axe or thermal lance "borrowed" from a business in the city. It's actually not as difficult as you might think if you don't worry about a lot of the regulate/legislated requirements. Bear in mind that they aren't salvaging a vessel, they are stripping it, two altogether different things.

As for investing those resources in themselves, well, how? They can't build roads, most of them are taking days off from subsistence, and their other lucrative endeavor is piracy, which entails significantly higher risk.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 12 July 2019, 09:05:33
Heeeeey, let's drift away from modern-day socio-economics for a while...

(https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/b/1/u/g/3/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.710x400.1b1swi.png/1461108299289.jpg)

My father-in-law passed away a few days ago- he was a native Kiwi who moved to the U.S. many years ago to work at his nation's embassy in Washington DC, and never left after marrying and having a couple of daughters (the eldest of whom I married a few weeks ago). He was fiercely proud of his heritage, and over drinks last fall we'd had a discussion about Gallipoli and other battles fought by the Kiwis during WWI. I'd mentioned to him that they'd even owned a battlecruiser (sort of) during that war, and he lit up- he'd been unaware that HMS New Zealand existed. She was an early battlecruiser, obsolete the moment she hit the water, but fought throughout the war as part of Beatty's battle line regardless.

The above photo was one of a small collage of New Zealand history photos we'd put together as a little collage to put on his wall while he was in hospice care, and was just taken down last night as we started going through his personal effects. (I'd hoped to find blueprints of the ship for him to look over, but never was able to find any prior to his passing).

Note the wide distance between the funnels, the idea being that the wing turrets could aim across the other side of the ship between the gaps and provide a full broadside- in reality this simply ruined the decks and had an absurdly tight arc of fire, so it was a failed idea.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 12 July 2019, 09:20:58
How about we show more pictures.

It looks like Narco semi-submersible submarines are still on the prowl, this was off Easter Pacific Coast. 

This is U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Munro (WMSL-755), she bagging one those Narco subs. (https://news.usni.org/2019/07/11/uscgc-munro-returns-from-patrol-with-record-cocaine-haul) She just return from tour

(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/5567955.jpg)

The link has video of them pulling over one these subs.  I watch partially see the crazy designs the drug cartels are trying to do.  I honestly though it had stop since i hadn't seen news about recently.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 12 July 2019, 09:38:48
Not hearing about submarines usually means the exact opposite of "there are no submarines"... :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 12 July 2019, 10:06:58
Yeah, I saw a video link of them actually getting that thing . . .

Coastie in tac gear (lol, desert brown) had leaped over to the top and was pounding on the hatch with some chop on the seas.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 12 July 2019, 10:58:08
Saw it earlier today. Serious James Bond stuff going on

Anyone speak (presumably) Mexican? Something something fuego, so I presume that's "power down"

https://youtu.be/7rnVSlcs7_E
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 12 July 2019, 11:03:26
There older video from 2016, where the Coast Guard was pumping water out of the narco sub with like 73 million dollar worth of drugs. The thing was half full of water, i think the smugglers were trying to scuttle her. I didn't see if they managed salvage the ship.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 12 July 2019, 11:06:34
Kidd: according to several comments on the video, the shouting was "Alto tu barco!", meaning "Stop your boat!"
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 12 July 2019, 11:26:35
Kidd: according to several comments on the video, the shouting was "Alto tu barco!", meaning "Stop your boat!"
Ah right, thanks

I didn't actually go to the YouTube comments, I just grabbed the link off a forum
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ghost0402 on 12 July 2019, 14:02:40
Yeah, I saw a video link of them actually getting that thing . . .

Coastie in tac gear (lol, desert brown) had leaped over to the top and was pounding on the hatch with some chop on the seas.
We were watching it at work this morning. l think everyone was amazed the sub opened the hatch.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 12 July 2019, 15:00:53
They are not really subs are they?  My understanding is they did not really submerge, but were built to snorkel at the surface and thus be very hard to see by radar.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: snewsom2997 on 12 July 2019, 15:38:36
You know you are having a bad day when someone knocks on the door of your submarine in the middle of the ocean.  >:D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ghost0402 on 12 July 2019, 16:08:27
They are not really subs are they?  My understanding is they did not really submerge, but were built to snorkel at the surface and thus be very hard to see by radar.
Semi-submersible.  Who knows, a bunch of nukes were laughing then making fun of the air force since they can't really make fun of Coasties now.   :D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 12 July 2019, 16:11:38
Nukes generally don't laugh at non-nuclear submarines, but semi-submersibles are a whole other kettle of fish...  ^-^
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 12 July 2019, 16:14:50
They are not really subs are they?  My understanding is they did not really submerge, but were built to snorkel at the surface and thus be very hard to see by radar.
most are semi-submersible, but a few are full submarines. the later usually can't dive all that deep (a few dozen feet) but that is usually because they are made from flimsier materials like fiberglass.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 12 July 2019, 16:51:23
You know you are having a bad day when someone knocks on the door of your submarine in the middle of the ocean.  >:D

(https://wearethemighty-img.rbl.ms/simage/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.rbl.ms%2F17313335%2F980x.jpg/2000%2C2000/oxy8JPj1qkUpU7Rp/img.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 12 July 2019, 17:15:14
ROFL!  ;D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: BairdEC on 12 July 2019, 18:38:38
I never noticed that they are wearing US ribbons before....

(https://wearethemighty-img.rbl.ms/simage/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.rbl.ms%2F17313335%2F980x.jpg/2000%2C2000/oxy8JPj1qkUpU7Rp/img.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 12 July 2019, 18:49:32
It's not like the producers had easy access to the Soviet ones...  8)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: VhenRa on 13 July 2019, 03:11:49
Heeeeey, let's drift away from modern-day socio-economics for a while...

(https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/b/1/u/g/3/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.710x400.1b1swi.png/1461108299289.jpg)

My father-in-law passed away a few days ago- he was a native Kiwi who moved to the U.S. many years ago to work at his nation's embassy in Washington DC, and never left after marrying and having a couple of daughters (the eldest of whom I married a few weeks ago). He was fiercely proud of his heritage, and over drinks last fall we'd had a discussion about Gallipoli and other battles fought by the Kiwis during WWI. I'd mentioned to him that they'd even owned a battlecruiser (sort of) during that war, and he lit up- he'd been unaware that HMS New Zealand existed. She was an early battlecruiser, obsolete the moment she hit the water, but fought throughout the war as part of Beatty's battle line regardless.

The above photo was one of a small collage of New Zealand history photos we'd put together as a little collage to put on his wall while he was in hospice care, and was just taken down last night as we started going through his personal effects. (I'd hoped to find blueprints of the ship for him to look over, but never was able to find any prior to his passing).

Note the wide distance between the funnels, the idea being that the wing turrets could aim across the other side of the ship between the gaps and provide a full broadside- in reality this simply ruined the decks and had an absurdly tight arc of fire, so it was a failed idea.

The other interesting thing about HMS New Zealand in WWI was just how lucky she was. Fought in basically all the big major actions, took only a single hit. That hit was to the turret, where some of the other British Battlecruisers that blew up took a hit because of poor practices of safety and turrets flash fire exploding into the magazines.

On HMS New Zealand... hit was a dud. Didn't lose a single crewman in action.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: DoctorMonkey on 13 July 2019, 06:57:47
They are not really subs are they?  My understanding is they did not really submerge, but were built to snorkel at the surface and thus be very hard to see by radar.


To be fair, until the 1940s that was true of all submarines. I would guess the drug smugglers are looking to use internal combustion engines rather than something more complex to power their "subs" so they would be audible to sonar - I can't help but wonder if as a side tasking any SSNs are passing details they pick up to the USCG.


On the topic of HMS New Zealand, the BattleCruisers at Jutland were an example of how not to use them, the Battle of the Falkland Islands was an example of how to use them - they were designed to be predators of everything not in the battle line not to be in the battle line. Their role at Jutland should have been reconnaissance and denial of reconnaissance to the German High Seas Fleet rather than engaging the battle line but Beatty was... possibly not the right man for the job.


On the subject of Kiwis, they're a tough lot and both congratulations and commiserations JHB.


Photo of HMS Inflexible picking up survivors of the Gneisenau after the battle.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 13 July 2019, 07:30:10
Here nice picture
SMS Ägir, launched in 1896, she was 3,750 ton Imperial German Coastal Defense ship belonging to Odin-Class.  Only two were made.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8a/73/a7/8a73a723ce4122efc2825915a876edff.jpg)

She was armed 24 cm K (9.4 Inch) cannons, with 3.3 inch guns as secondary weapons and used 45cm torpedoes as well. 

She was certainly a stubby ship, i can't imagine thing handling rough seas well.

Here a picture her sistership Odin.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/SMS_Odin_NH_47886.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 13 July 2019, 09:42:47
Only two were made.
The two were classed as part of the 8-ship Siegfried class. The two differed slightly in design from the other six units (the other six were even shorter and stubbier). Ägir also differs from Odin by use of Thornycroft pressure boilers and more electric support systems.

Originally ten units were planned. These ships weren't intended to go out to sea; instead six of them were to be stationed along the mouths of major rivers into the North Sea (in particular the mouth of the Elbe river), the other four were to protect the Baltic Coast. Two ships, Hildebrand and Ägir, were to be used as command ships for these units.

At the time they apparently had the nickname "guinea pig" due to their stubby shape, slow rolling and appearing in "packs" at sea.

Between 1900 and 1904 all eight were rebuilt, lengthening them so that all eight ships were the same size and had near-identical propulsion and fuel stocks; Ägir and Odin were also lengthened in this, but with a shorter inset of about 400t weight. The armament was also unified to the same as for Ägir and Odin - the six other ships carried 35cm torpedoes before that and a couple fewer 88mm guns in lieu of a set of six 37mm revolver cannons. The above coastal protection role was abandoned, and they were to be used as a homogenous single squadron (in line with Tirpitz reorganizing the ships-of-the-line in 8-ship squadrons).
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 13 July 2019, 12:26:18
The above coastal protection role was abandoned, and they were to be used as a homogenous single squadron (in line with Tirpitz reorganizing the ships-of-the-line in 8-ship squadrons).
wait so they refitted the ships and then basically use them as normal sea combat ship?
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 13 July 2019, 14:32:51
wait so they refitted the ships and then basically use them as normal sea combat ship?
Well, they intended to. Their main use to Tirpitz was something else though: Marking them as obsolete so that he could push through more procurement of "real" battleships to replace them. The replacement ships came off the slips between 1909 and 1912.

They were pretty much reserve ships from their refit up until WW1. Well, technically they were part of the "Active Battle Fleet" until late 1904. Following that there were some larger-scale exercises in which the ships were activated and formed active combat ships in regular units. During this time - mostly in 1904 - they also did foreign visits as part of longer sea cruises, such as all around the UK with visits to e.g. the Shetlands, or visits to Morocco.
In the autumn maneuvers in 1909 all eight ships were activated and constituted into a single squadron, which served apparently as escorts for a transport convoy and then supported an amphibious landing with gun fire. In other maneuvers, e.g. in 1907, ships of the class served in mixed squadrons with other battleships. The homogenous squadron was an idea that came up in 1907 when the High Seas Fleet was constituted; the HSF consisted of two eight-ship battleship squadrons, with the eight obsolete Siegfried class ships forming a reserve third squadron for that.

Following the start of WW1 the VI. Squadron was constituted with the eight activated ships. However, since there wasn't really any high-sea action that these slow ships could take part in, the VI. Squadron was operationally distributed to serve coincidentally in exactly the original role - protecting the mouths of the major rivers. Only one of them saw some action in this role - SMS Hagen rescued the crew of cruiser SMS Yorck that had run into a minefield in their AoR in November 1914. SMS Beowulf was reassigned to support operations in the Baltic Sea from May 1915, firing her guns at land targets in these.

The VI. Squadron was dissolved on August 31st 1915 with the ships mostly relegated to coastal artillery divisions until manpower shortages had the Navy deactivate them and reassign the crews in early 1916.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 13 July 2019, 22:39:28

To be fair, until the 1940s that was true of all submarines. I would guess the drug smugglers are looking to use internal combustion engines rather than something more complex to power their "subs" so they would be audible to sonar - I can't help but wonder if as a side tasking any SSNs are passing details they pick up to the USCG.

Just because it has to surface and run its diesel to recharge the batteries did not make WWI or WWII non-submarines.  They would dive and operate off the batteries for various reasons.

From what I read about the narco 'subs' they were more like semi-submerged- like the Monitor with no cheesebox on top.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 14 July 2019, 03:31:37
Speaking of interesting turret layouts

(https://preview.redd.it/8ko723ajxx131.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=251ae389c7613d17e7d3d8ed4374a156bbc3ff49)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/USS_Kearsarge_Brassey%27s.png)

The Kearsarge class's layout of dual 8-inch turrets mounted directly atop their 13-inch guns was very different but it had a lot of draw backs including top weight and that a single hit could disable all 4 guns. Plus it wasn't pleasant for the crew of the 13-inch turret when the 8-inch guns fired over them.

(http://i.imgur.com/xyNvE7Q.jpg)

It was later repeated on the Virginia class but wasn't really a success (even though they built 5 of the class).

(https://external-preview.redd.it/JqNEQW8CALfw_LE668HIg1qf6Hl8lltoGnrPt1rSU0U.jpg?auto=webp&s=f535524d6c2f74ab4d8bc0608bdfb0b773bdc8a7)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 14 July 2019, 04:26:43
Ammunition feed hoists for those 8" guns must be utterly nuts in the 13" turret.  Talk about cluttered space!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Kidd on 14 July 2019, 04:50:03
Shuddering at the crews' ear damage.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: I am Belch II on 14 July 2019, 04:54:49
I just wondered on the Kearsage could the 8" turret turn independently form the 13" gun?? Have the 13" gun fire at the port  and the 8" fire at the starboard? 
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 14 July 2019, 05:56:02
I just wondered on the Kearsage could the 8" turret turn independently form the 13" gun?? Have the 13" gun fire at the port  and the 8" fire at the starboard?

Nope, they were fixed, where the 13 inch pointed so too did the 8. the only thing it could do was elevate on its own.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 14 July 2019, 16:14:37
Those Gunners on top of the Kearsarge has 13 turret must shaken ot when tbe big guns fired. I can't imagine that helps with Aiming. Without reading a dedicated book on the subject, i'd I would think that the Ship's Cafe Mason choose when it's going to be using those Ford 8-inch Guns Over the larger Canon so I don't think they would be using them at the same time.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 15 July 2019, 03:37:03
Those Gunners on top of the Kearsarge has 13 turret must shaken ot when tbe big guns fired. I can't imagine that helps with Aiming. Without reading a dedicated book on the subject, i'd I would think that the Ship's Cafe Mason choose when it's going to be using those Ford 8-inch Guns Over the larger Canon so I don't think they would be using them at the same time.

You'd think that but nope! Both mountings would be in action at the same time. Because of the performance of propellant and the ranges they would fight at (where something like 4,000 yards is long range, and 2,000 yards was much better) the 8-inch shells had decent armour penetration performance, not that of the the 13-inch rounds but fired far quicker. VS the cost of having a far smaller bursting charge and doing less damage. So the tactics of the time for most pre-dreadnought ships of this era was get close, hammer with secondary battery to start fires and silence the enemies secondary battery whilst landing the odd heavy hit with your main guns.

The USN adopted the 8-inch gun on its pre-dreadnoughts because at the time the gun fired far faster than the big 13-inch rifles and punched harder than 6-inch guns.  But advances in propellant and guns reduced the firing cycle of 12 inch guns considerably (the slow burning 'cocoa powder' propellant HAD to be swabbed from the guns every time you fired), but the USN retained the 8-inch guns, even replacing the standard 6-inch guns of other nations pre-dreadnought secondaries with a 7-inch gun.

So..yeah! In action, both 13 and 8-inch guns would be in action at the same time.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 15 July 2019, 07:28:47
Wow. I can't believe that they're both firing at the same time. I've been on a 3in twin gun mount and that stuff can be really jarring when the guns are firing. I can only imagine what it's like being on there with a 13in cannon firing below me and the 8-inch gun firing with me.

EDIT: Gaud! My phone is killing me with stupid autocorrections!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 15 July 2019, 08:39:40
The line from Footfall is applicable.  "God was knocking, and he wanted in bad."
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 15 July 2019, 10:00:03
Well, i tried find pictures (if they exist) of the Kearsarge firing her guns.  No luck there.

However, i found a rare picture of First LT onboard the CSS Alabama, which pretty darn old picture. 

(http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/archive/displays/alabama/graphics/large/css-alabama-kell.jpg)

The picture was archived in collection in England.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 15 July 2019, 10:42:37
You'd think that but nope! Both mountings would be in action at the same time. Because of the performance of propellant and the ranges they would fight at (where something like 4,000 yards is long range, and 2,000 yards was much better) the 8-inch shells had decent armour penetration performance, not that of the the 13-inch rounds but fired far quicker. VS the cost of having a far smaller bursting charge and doing less damage. So the tactics of the time for most pre-dreadnought ships of this era was get close, hammer with secondary battery to start fires and silence the enemies secondary battery whilst landing the odd heavy hit with your main guns.

The USN adopted the 8-inch gun on its pre-dreadnoughts because at the time the gun fired far faster than the big 13-inch rifles and punched harder than 6-inch guns.  But advances in propellant and guns reduced the firing cycle of 12 inch guns considerably (the slow burning 'cocoa powder' propellant HAD to be swabbed from the guns every time you fired), but the USN retained the 8-inch guns, even replacing the standard 6-inch guns of other nations pre-dreadnought secondaries with a 7-inch gun.

So..yeah! In action, both 13 and 8-inch guns would be in action at the same time.

A very good analysis! As stated here, pre-dreadnoughts mounted a few heavy guns for hammerblows on armored targets (their opposite number in the enemy formation, most likely), but because it took so long to reload them they would use mid-sized guns to keep pressure on, and small-caliber weapons to deal with motor torpedo boats and the like. The rise of the dreadnought came due to the rate of fire of larger guns increasing to a level in which they were firing roughly three times in two minutes- a rate of fire that really wasn't all that far behind the mid-caliber guns. So, as three nations all discovered at the same time (independently of each other!), it really made more sense to just built an all-big gun ship. Japan's first one ended up being re-armed with  mid-size guns after all due to a big-gun shortage, but the British and Americans moved ahead with theirs- Dreadnought technically started after the American South Carolina, but finished sooner. Both were intriguing in their own way- Dreadnought was realistically the superior ship thanks to her turbine engines (arguably a greater technological leap than the big-gun battery!), but South Carolina featured superfiring gun mounts, which made for a much more compact and better-planned layout for the armor. The steps forward made by both classes can be seen on almost every battleship class that followed around the world for the remainder of the battleship era.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 15 July 2019, 11:08:34
Well, i tried find pictures (if they exist) of the Kearsarge firing her guns.  No luck there.

However, i found a rare picture of First LT onboard the CSS Alabama, which pretty darn old picture. 

(http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/archive/displays/alabama/graphics/large/css-alabama-kell.jpg)

The picture was archived in collection in England.

Oh, that picture is a fake!  Someone inserted Ser Davos the Onion Knight just like they do a Marauder in the October Revolution!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 15 July 2019, 12:09:31
Wow. I can't believe that they're both firing at the same time. I've been on a 3in twin gun mount and that stuff can be really jarring when the guns are firing. I can only imagine what it's like being on there with a 13in cannon firing below me and the 8-inch gun firing with me.

EDIT: Gaud! My phone is killing me with stupid autocorrections!

Yep!  And don't forget that the propellant for these old guns wasn't too far descended from that used in 1812 or 1806 at Trafalgar and produced huge amounts of smoke.

(https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/bb-5-turret.gif)

Thats the layout of the Kearsarge's turret, the later Virginia's with their similar turrets

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/29/1c/57291c43ca0fa96056d3e4a8ecc23539.jpg)

had a similar layout, and ALL the shells and propellant had to come up two shell hoists making the opening to the magazine and hoist below absolutely massive. People laugh at the RN for its turret issues in the 20s and 30s but they'd be screaming in terror at the layout and issues these designs had :p
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Luciora on 15 July 2019, 12:34:48
Man, all it needs is an AP mounting on top and you'd have a Matroyska gun mounting!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 15 July 2019, 12:49:36
Also note for the Kearsage, the 8-inch gun is pretty much directly over the sighting hood of the 13-inch guns beneath it. 

You get a concussion and you get a concussion! and or I heard ya'll like smoke inhalation!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 15 July 2019, 12:58:43
The Virginias also make it easier to see how the turret is set up- rather than rotating separately from the main guns, that mid-size mount actually shares the backplate of the main turret- they're fixed together by sharing the same armor plate there.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 15 July 2019, 13:38:22
Aye :) Same with the Kear's, their upper 8-inch mount didn't rotate either, but that was the turret design they had at the time, same as on the Olympia IIRC, they just bolted it on top of the 13-inch mount. And as you point out the Virginia's had a single huge turret back that went up to the back of the 8-inch mount. Although I have no idea where the sighting hoods for the 12-inchers on the Virginia are.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 15 July 2019, 13:43:24
A very good analysis! As stated here, pre-dreadnoughts mounted a few heavy guns for hammerblows on armored targets (their opposite number in the enemy formation, most likely), but because it took so long to reload them they would use mid-sized guns to keep pressure on, and small-caliber weapons to deal with motor torpedo boats and the like. The rise of the dreadnought came due to the rate of fire of larger guns increasing to a level in which they were firing roughly three times in two minutes- a rate of fire that really wasn't all that far behind the mid-caliber guns. So, as three nations all discovered at the same time (independently of each other!), it really made more sense to just built an all-big gun ship. Japan's first one ended up being re-armed with  mid-size guns after all due to a big-gun shortage, but the British and Americans moved ahead with theirs- Dreadnought technically started after the American South Carolina, but finished sooner. Both were intriguing in their own way- Dreadnought was realistically the superior ship thanks to her turbine engines (arguably a greater technological leap than the big-gun battery!), but South Carolina featured superfiring gun mounts, which made for a much more compact and better-planned layout for the armor. The steps forward made by both classes can be seen on almost every battleship class that followed around the world for the remainder of the battleship era.

The other driver for the all-big-gun approach was sighting. In the pre-Dreadnought era, most shots were at almost Napoleonic ranges, firing direct. Indirect fire needed spotting the fall of the shells; when you had the 12", 9", 6" and 3" all banging away, figuring out which gun was firing long and which was firing short was ... difficult. IIRC, some experimented with adding coloured dyes to the explosives, but that didn't really work.

As sighting equipment let engagements start at 10,000 yards plus, it made better sense to just use guns of all one calibre, firing in directed salvos.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: hoosierhick on 15 July 2019, 13:55:49

The USN adopted the 8-inch gun on its pre-dreadnoughts because at the time the gun fired far faster than the big 13-inch rifles and punched harder than 6-inch guns.  But advances in propellant and guns reduced the firing cycle of 12 inch guns considerably (the slow burning 'cocoa powder' propellant HAD to be swabbed from the guns every time you fired), but the USN retained the 8-inch guns, even replacing the standard 6-inch guns of other nations pre-dreadnought secondaries with a 7-inch gun.


I had always wondered why the big guns on the late 1800s battleships took several minutes between shots.  That makes sense if they were being swabbed after every round.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 15 July 2019, 15:14:38
Quote
I had always wondered why the big guns on the late 1800s battleships took several minutes between shots.  That makes sense if they were being swabbed after every round.

Yep! That changed with new propellants, by the very early 1900's the UK was using cordite, the French were using this stuff called Ballistite (which had nitro in it) and so on. These didn't leave un-burnt powder residue or bits of smouldering propellant in the barrels (most of the time) and thus eliminated the need for swabbing. Another big thing that sped up firing was all round loading. On say the RN's Royal Soverign class battleships, when they fired their main 13.5-inch guns, the guns then had to be trained fore or aft and raised to a certain angle to take in the shell and propellant before being swung back round to point at their target. The Italians and then the French were early adopters of all round loading where you could load the gun what ever way it was pointing, thus ramping up the rate of fire. The Brits started experimenting with all round loading in the last of the Majestic class and fully adopted it from thereon.

Quote
As sighting equipment let engagements start at 10,000 yards plus, it made better sense to just use guns of all one calibre, firing in directed salvos.

Very true, in the Russo Japanese War the two sides opened fire at what were HUGE ranges for the time, with the opening shots at Tishuma and Yellow Sea being around 12k yards. Most navies didn't train to fight at that range. In the early 1900's the French were working on it though, they went fire control mad and started training their crews to engage at 6,000 yards, whereas the standard 'long' range for the RN was 4,000 yards.

The French did this mostly because they were at the short end of the numbers game and the industrial stick when it came to their main rival, the RN at that time. So they wanted to hit first and get early and perhaps vital hits in at ranges the RN wasn't trained to fight at. But this lead to the Marine National adopting a wide range of range finders and having them on all their ships. To the point that each individual turret or gun battery, would have its own range finding kit, instead of a centralised position directing all the guns. This for example lead to the battleship Carnot having 16, yes, 16 different gunnery direction positions and bits of equipment. Some in the turrets, others in gun batteries, some on the bridge etc etc. So they were on the right track, just going in the wrong direction because they were holding the map upside down.


(https://scontent.fdub5-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17362390_1234521896662935_4252549714182717386_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_oc=AQkjJm8Gl_E2n7ak9Rm-BHknldXmD07jCBAc4bOX1yiKigaSdM4Xw6D_uuu3_F0qpS8&_nc_ht=scontent.fdub5-1.fna&oh=e76aa4d1af3ac7ed6186b78ef82b7341&oe=5DAF0752)

The French ships of the era were also powerfully ugly.


Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: worktroll on 15 July 2019, 15:23:03
I don't know, I quite like the look of tumbledown. Just not the sea-keeping properties.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 15 July 2019, 15:28:49
I don't know, I quite like the look of tumbledown. Just not the sea-keeping properties.

Its cool in that steampunky kind of way buuut...

Meet the Messana

(https://civilwartalk.com/attachments/j2ceqyh-jpg.38918/)

(https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aWY78zK_700bwp.webp)

and her predecessor, the Hoche. Note how the bow is digging in and how smooth it is.

(https://i.redd.it/e7beovhnlz131.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/ifow54O.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 15 July 2019, 15:31:54
you have to give it to the French. They literally like making their warships back in the day unique and original.  Semi-mersible too.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 15 July 2019, 15:32:58
you have to give it to the French. They literally like making their warships back in the day unique and original.  Semi-mersible too.

The French ships certinally were...unique. Even for that period!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 15 July 2019, 15:40:52
The French ships certinally were...unique. Even for that period!
Well, at least their current aircraft carrier doesn't have TWO islands to confuse people which structure is the bridge and which one is the pilot's lounge.   ;D

(http://static.progressivemediagroup.com/uploads/imagelibrary/gfhtgyu7889.jpg)
JS Charles de Gaulle

It's too bad they keep dragging their feet about building their second carrier.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 15 July 2019, 15:41:52
Money and politics at the end of the day keep delaying the Sister to the CDG. But she's a handsome lass for sure :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 15 July 2019, 15:48:10
Well, the 2nd carrier WOULD HAVE BEEN near sister ship to the QE-Class, but they bailed out of it.  I think by the time they get around building it, it will end up replacing Charles de Gaulle.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 15 July 2019, 15:48:33
Bit of a nitpick: Ships of the Marine Nationale do not use the prefix JS. Neither do ships of the JMSDF, actually. Neither navy uses any prefix at all. :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 15 July 2019, 15:51:18
To be fair, not building a twin to de Gaulle isn't a bad idea. She's had a lot of problems with her engines, so rather than spending a ton of money to have TWO broken flat-tops, leaving it at one and making sure to get it right next time makes more sense.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 15 July 2019, 17:33:21
So, a totally serious and not at all humorous question.  ;)

One of my recent denizens of the deep periphery worlds was based loosely on imperial Russian culture, and I noted in the description that they built small battleships for their oversized sea going navies.

I decided I wanted to get a properly scaled model kit to represent it on table top, and I wanted it to be a pre-dreadnought to go with the whole Imperial Russian feel.

The one ended up finding on Amazon and buying was a 1/700 scale model of this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa.jpg/1024px-Japanese_battleship_Mikasa.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa)

What do you think? Too culturally insensitive?  ;D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 15 July 2019, 17:39:36
Just say it's the future of the 80s - the 1880s. :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 15 July 2019, 18:45:20
I actually have a half-finished model of a WoB blue-water warship for a long-deceased campaign (the one used to test the webbed campaign from CamOps actually)... a bone-white Tenryu-class light cruiser (Tatsuta, to be specific). The weapons were going to be swappable for a pair of AA turrets from Partisan AA vehicles from MWDA, while a pair of MWDA missile turrets would give the ship its big artillery weapons. Another pair of gun mounts (I don't think I made a final decision on them) would have replaced the torpedo mounts as well.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 15 July 2019, 19:31:34
I actually have a half-finished model of a WoB blue-water warship for a long-deceased campaign (the one used to test the webbed campaign from CamOps actually)... a bone-white Tenryu-class light cruiser (Tatsuta, to be specific). The weapons were going to be swappable for a pair of AA turrets from Partisan AA vehicles from MWDA, while a pair of MWDA missile turrets would give the ship its big artillery weapons. Another pair of gun mounts (I don't think I made a final decision on them) would have replaced the torpedo mounts as well.
blue-water?  Aside from the Wyrm-Class  SDS Submersible Fortress, i didn't think there were any.  Though i'd love see some invented! Hope you post it else where so we can see them.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 15 July 2019, 20:05:59
I have a hard time believing a battleship can ever be considered "culturally insensitive"...  ^-^
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 15 July 2019, 20:27:54
blue-water?  Aside from the Wyrm-Class  SDS Submersible Fortress, i didn't think there were any.  Though i'd love see some invented! Hope you post it else where so we can see them.

Huh?  We have roughly 6 warships mentioned along with the one pictured in Campaign Ops- though its not spec'd out.
Luftenburg carrier
Jormungand cruiser (BC really)
Rapier destroyer
Andryusha frigate (converted Rapiers)
Rapier based carrier design (ex-Duladier)
Lysander sub carrier (armed tender)
Meabh cruiser
Cliona light cruiser (unspec'd, at least 3)
Wakamiya destroyer (salvage/logistics specialist)

Oddly enough I do not recall seeing any blue water surface ships for the League though I am sure there has to be one . . . Lyrans on the other hand get 4 ships they build during the League and afterwards.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 15 July 2019, 21:24:20
I have a hard time believing a battleship can ever be considered "culturally insensitive"...  ^-^

I can think of a few. But even if I'm wrong, it speaks very well of Liam that he bothered to ask. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 15 July 2019, 21:34:49
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa)

What do you think? Too culturally insensitive?  ;D
I can think of a few. But even if I'm wrong, it speaks very well of Liam that he bothered to ask. :thumbsup:
I don't think it's an issue.  Mi casa su casa after all.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 15 July 2019, 22:33:35
Oddly enough I do not recall seeing any blue water surface ships for the League though I am sure there has to be one . . . Lyrans on the other hand get 4 ships they build during the League and afterwards.
The Argo-Class Submersable Aircraft Carrier, it was in the Housebook: Marik.  It was like first Support Vehicle made if i'm not mistaken (which i likely am).  The Kraken Unleashed mercenary company bought one and transported it to a Liao planet they were contracted to defend and then sold it to them.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Weirdo on 16 July 2019, 00:37:44
I kitbashed one out of a Typhoon, long ago. I should dig it out and spruce it up.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 16 July 2019, 04:02:00
So, a totally serious and not at all humorous question.  ;)

One of my recent denizens of the deep periphery worlds was based loosely on imperial Russian culture, and I noted in the description that they built small battleships for their oversized sea going navies.

I decided I wanted to get a properly scaled model kit to represent it on table top, and I wanted it to be a pre-dreadnought to go with the whole Imperial Russian feel.

The one ended up finding on Amazon and buying was a 1/700 scale model of this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa.jpg/1024px-Japanese_battleship_Mikasa.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa)

What do you think? Too culturally insensitive?  ;D

Not too insensitive but it does look wrong :p The Russian ships of that period were a curious mix of French designs and American as well as some home grown influences. That one's entirely British :D The largest distinct group of battleships at Tishuma was the Borodino class battleship

(http://i59.tinypic.com/2nura0g.jpg)

Which were based on the French made Tsesarevich but with various changes to the design that basically made the whole class one of the worst classes of Pre-dreadnoughts ever made. Basically the idea the Russians had was take the Tsesarevich, lighten it, make it faster. To do so they thinned the armour belt to little over 7 inches to save weight as well as other internal changes, all with the idea of saving weight to get speed up. At which point the ships came in about 3,000 tons overweight as the design was changed again and again and other things were altered like adding far more opulent features in the officers messes and quarters (the mess had a marble floor). This added weight pushed the ships lower in the water, partially submerging the armoured belt, leaving more of the more thinly armoured hull exposed. They also had the pronounced tumblehome of the Tsesarevich and all the issues that come with it when you start flooding.

This issue was made worse during the journey to the Far East, as the ships were so hugely overloaded with coal that the added weight of all that shoved the armour belt below the water. Also as the coal bags were stored everywhere, it left coal dust spread throughout the ships.
And coaldust is HELLA flammable and hecka explosive, as was ably demonstrated by this...'clever' Australian.

https://imgur.com/gallery/DIahVSh

That's a coal dust flash fire. If there's enough coal dust, that turns into an explosion. Now imagine ship corridors filled with coal dust, and painted with oil based paints being exposed to high explosive shells.



Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 16 July 2019, 07:49:05
Pre-Dreadnought Battleship, SMS Brandenburg, in 1895, she survive in service until 1920 until she was scrapped.  She was sent help deal with the Boxer Rebellion in China 1900, but she and her sistership and number others part of the German Expeditionary arrived as the problems in Peking had been resolved.  By World War I, she was obsolete, but used in reserve squadrons, training, experimental roles, and was deactivated number times, but was reactivated for the War.  However didn't see much action was eventually taken out front line service.

Its a shame the picture wasn't in color, the ship apparently is in blue gray paint scheme when a ship is station in homewaters.

(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63514.0;attach=53605)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 16 July 2019, 08:45:57
(https://i.imgur.com/wxioYnX.jpg)

Something like that?

I also loved the old Imperial Russian paint scheme

(https://i.imgur.com/OSJsr0f.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 16 July 2019, 12:55:48
That's a coal dust flash fire. If there's enough coal dust, that turns into an explosion. Now imagine ship corridors filled with coal dust, and painted with oil based paints being exposed to high explosive shells.
RMS Lusitania called, according to Bob Ballard.  So did USS Maine...
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: kato on 16 July 2019, 13:04:59
Something like that?
Nah, that one's sort of the 1930s interpretation of what was originally the white-yellow "tropical" paint scheme (which until 1910 all German ships deploying overseas ran, the Imperial Yacht until 1914). The original white-yellow scheme consisted of all-white below the reling and yellow for stacks, turrets and similar "exposed hardware" above that (except gun barrels, which were white).

"Bluegrey" is just a blueish tinted dark grey, Color RAL7031.

(https://abload.de/img/ral7031zzjwv.jpg)

Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 16 July 2019, 13:50:47
Could we not post the rapidly flashing strobe-like gifs?  Those things give me a headache.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 16 July 2019, 14:17:59
Could we not post the rapidly flashing strobe-like gifs?  Those things give me a headache.

Fixed :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Ghost0402 on 16 July 2019, 14:58:50
So i just found out SS Nomadic, the tender that was intended to serve White Star Lines big three, Titannic, Olympic, and Britannic is still around as a museum.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/SS_Nomadic_March_2012.jpg)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 16 July 2019, 15:57:57
Its been a tour option for a few years . . . is the WWI destroyer at the quay still being refurbished?  I cannot remember if it was at the Titanic museum or further up the road where the . . . passenger terminal was?  It would have been behind the picture taker.  The destroyer had been a training ship in WWII IIRC, and into the 50s.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 16 July 2019, 21:06:17
Fixed :)

Thank you :)
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: marauder648 on 17 July 2019, 02:43:10
RMS Lusitania called, according to Bob Ballard.  So did USS Maine...

Lusitania was probably a coal dust explosion but the UK didn't really help matters about the accusation that she was carrying ammunition by using her as a depth charging target post war, wrecking the wreck even further.

Maine was definately a coal dust explosion that kicked off her magazine.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 17 July 2019, 03:17:41
Dust explosions are fun like that.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: God and Davion on 17 July 2019, 12:05:33
Its been a tour option for a few years . . . is the WWI destroyer at the quay still being refurbished?  I cannot remember if it was at the Titanic museum or further up the road where the . . . passenger terminal was?  It would have been behind the picture taker.  The destroyer had been a training ship in WWII IIRC, and into the 50s.

AFAIK it has been restored. Actually, it is a WWI Cruiser, survivor en Jutland. The Caroline.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 17 July 2019, 12:48:06
Yeah all I could remember was the ship had a woman's name, the wife & I were in Belfast in '15 . . . it was in pretty rough shape but being worked on at the time but we found out there would be a effort to preserve.  I would argue she has not been preserved, just repaired since it still seems to have some of the later 'upgrades' for her role as a training ship.

Found this online, somewhere I have the same picture-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SmPoU5Zi0E4/VZFTUEu0yRI/AAAAAAAAAeQ/NYKSpA53ZPQ/s1600/IMG_4500.JPG)
Looks like a lot of folks took pictures of it while visiting the Titanic embark dock.

News article about the authorization in '15 showed a close look at deterioration-
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02469/hms-caroline-funne_2469562k.jpg)

Old photo of its looks
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02469/HMS_Caroline-bw_2469583k.jpg)

Some plans
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02469/hms-caroline-plans_2469560k.jpg)

and a link to the original plans, too big to include and I cannot scale it down here-
http://www.rmg.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/banner/public/J9113copy_0.jpg?itok=QiXNAIUf (http://www.rmg.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/banner/public/J9113copy_0.jpg?itok=QiXNAIUf)


(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/wniZpb2ut0xvsl91qVriIRkRt1Jl1iCQWx_YqnBvbfOCmJZUz4wLqqFxl7156AffoswhIXEUFh8mEozhYWMv_NY0GI9kQdOadDbqVb18bn--wSsV0Q=s0-d)

So the C-class & Town-class light cruisers were very similar, but the later C class survived to WWII with the Bristols scrapped in the early 1920s . . . which is interesting is b/c there is only about 5 years between the classes.  From what I read the Bristols had more armor, but the placement caused them to be bad gun platforms . . . which was not helped by the guns just having shields rather than turrets.  The early Cs had their guns upgraded during WWI but the Bristols did not- makes me think the design was sort of written off b/c of how the armoring plan worked out.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Wrangler on 17 July 2019, 13:03:03
They STILL haven't restored HMS Caroline?  I posted that picture of it's aft like six odd months ago.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 17 July 2019, 13:43:20
No, its been repaired, but NOT restored . . . and lots of those type pictures floating around, I took one that was much the same and there were several that were similar when I looked online.  The one I posted was back in '15 I think.  The current images do not show the rust, lol.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: grimlock1 on 17 July 2019, 13:58:50
No, its been repaired, but NOT restored . . . and lots of those type pictures floating around, I took one that was much the same and there were several that were similar when I looked online.  The one I posted was back in '15 I think.  The current images do not show the rust, lol.
I'm a bit fuzzy on the nuance between the two.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 17 July 2019, 14:03:18
Restored: They put the ship back to her original condition. See in the photos above how the old version is sleek and streamlined, while the current shots have those big bulky deckhouses and such? A restoration would put her back to her original config.

Repaired: The damned thing won't sink today!
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: God and Davion on 17 July 2019, 16:15:38
Restored: They put the ship back to her original condition. See in the photos above how the old version is sleek and streamlined, while the current shots have those big bulky deckhouses and such? A restoration would put her back to her original config.

Repaired: The damned thing won't sink today!

Actually, Krupp (oh, the Irony!) built the new barrels. And they are NOT mockups.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Daryk on 17 July 2019, 16:19:57
The irony indeed... on SO many levels!  :D
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: Colt Ward on 17 July 2019, 16:35:04
Sure, but she is not back to her 1920 condition before she was transferred to be a training ship.

Though I will give you its a bit odd to buy new gun barrels- do they meet spec?- while leaving that added superstructure hunkering on the deck.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: God and Davion on 17 July 2019, 17:15:33
Sure, but she is not back to her 1920 condition before she was transferred to be a training ship.

Though I will give you its a bit odd to buy new gun barrels- do they meet spec?- while leaving that added superstructure hunkering on the deck.

Yes, it is a bit odd. At least she is in a good condition now.

https://www.nmrn.org.uk/exhibitions-projects/hms-caroline/hms-caroline-experience
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 17 July 2019, 18:23:21
Lusitania was probably a coal dust explosion but the UK didn't really help matters about the accusation that she was carrying ammunition by using her as a depth charging target post war, wrecking the wreck even further.
I'll definitely agree with Ballard about stuff like that, the man knows his wrecks.  But there's a lot of competing theories, and history is never made of a single event but a nice little tapestry of charlie-foxtrots woven together.  Data from the Royal Artillery Regiment confirms that the munitions she was carrying were actually live, powdered and fuzed, and the magazine was just forward of the coal bunker and also in the apparent strike area of the torpedo.  Ballard's theory goes with the torp hitting just aft of the magazine, since he found no torpedo damage at the forward end of the magazine itself (but doesn't rule out a strike at the rear, or on the bulkhead between the bunker and magazine) hence the coal explosion.

There's also powdered aluminum that was being transported as well, which aerates into a fuel-air explosive as well if sufficiently disturbed.  Worth consideration is a bomb aboard the ship that detonated sympathetically - there was the Black Tom explosion caused by German agents, and just after Lusitania sailed, three German spies were arrested with a camera aboard the liner.  Their mission was never learned, but the thought is that a bomb was placed aboard to deal with the illegal munitions shipments to the Brits.  Wouldn't be the first time, and they were caught onboard.

I suppose, with all the salvage attempts, the damage from the depth charges, the fishing gear, and the overall structural failure of the ship plus the rapid state of decay, there's not really going to be a way to find out what happened.
Title: Re: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 17 July 2019, 22:01:28
so basically the ship was loaded with three different types of explodium, and the torpedo managed to hit at least one of them, probably triggering a chain reaction..