Author Topic: Naval Pictures VI: A New Enterprise (Read 231669 times)

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #750 on:** 06 May 2019, 14:04:26 »

Let's take the Game of Thrones stuff to another thread, folks.

Ghost0402 · « **Reply #751 on:** 06 May 2019, 14:18:33 »

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.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #752 on:** 06 May 2019, 14:24:47 »

Quote from: Ghost0402 on 06 May 2019, 14:18:33

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.

I've been around there but not on the ship which looks odd with a glass casing all around

Colt Ward · « **Reply #753 on:** 06 May 2019, 14:52:41 »

Quote from: JadeHellbringer on 06 May 2019, 14:04:26

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.

Wrangler · « **Reply #754 on:** 07 May 2019, 07:46:10 »

How about a Korean Turtle ship, the Geobukseon? A ship when you really want keep those flaming arrows landing on your poop deck.

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #755 on:** 07 May 2019, 14:33:28 »

Quote from: Weirdo on 06 May 2019, 08:46:58

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.

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?

Colt Ward · « **Reply #756 on:** 07 May 2019, 14:37:37 »

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 . .

Wrangler · « **Reply #757 on:** 07 May 2019, 15:31:21 »

Funny to mention it, that looks like India is trying cut deal with UK to get designs for the Queen Elizabeth II for their next carrier to server along aside with their exRussian Aircraft Carrier, INS Vikramaditya, which they paid arm and leg for.

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.

Orin J. · « **Reply #758 on:** 07 May 2019, 22:17:59 »

Quote from: Wrangler on 07 May 2019, 15:31:21

Funny to mention it, that looks like India is trying cut deal with UK to get designs for the Queen Elizabeth II for their next carrier to server along aside with their exRussian Aircraft Carrier, INS Vikramaditya, which they paid arm and leg for.

Their nearly done building their own ship, the INS Vikrant. I'm not sure what going on with that ship, why it wasn't mentioned.

when in doubt, assume logistical shenannigans. that's always worked for me.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #759 on:** 08 May 2019, 11:02:08 »

Quote from: Orin J. on 07 May 2019, 22:17:59

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.

Sabelkatten · « **Reply #760 on:** 08 May 2019, 12:34:29 »

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.

Colt Ward · « **Reply #761 on:** 08 May 2019, 12:59:25 »

I wish we had sold them Enterprise

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #762 on:** 08 May 2019, 13:19:20 »

I can't imagine why you would.

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #763 on:** 08 May 2019, 15:23:23 »

Quote from: Colt Ward on 08 May 2019, 12:59:25

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.

Colt Ward · « **Reply #764 on:** 08 May 2019, 15:32:44 »

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.

Wrangler · « **Reply #765 on:** 08 May 2019, 15:56:28 »

Enterprise's wasn't in great shape. I had friends on her. Hull could have issues if ran into bad storm in the Atlantic.

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #766 on:** 08 May 2019, 19:54:48 »

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.

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #767 on:** 08 May 2019, 20:15:27 »

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.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #768 on:** 08 May 2019, 20:52:42 »

Seeing the Big E rust is a sad thing.

Wrangler · « **Reply #769 on:** 08 May 2019, 21:46:35 »

For some reason, i thought the ship's bridge superstructure was going to be preserved.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #770 on:** 09 May 2019, 04:02:03 »

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.

Nightlord01 · « **Reply #771 on:** 09 May 2019, 05:19:55 »

Quote from: DoctorMonkey on 09 May 2019, 04:02:03

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.

Uhh, INS Vikramaditya has already deployed to Japan...

As for whether they need an CVN, that's up to them. :)

Quote from: I am Belch II on 08 May 2019, 11:02:08

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.

Wrangler · « **Reply #772 on:** 09 May 2019, 06:57:00 »

I haven't read INS Vikramaditya being deployed to Japan. I found more recent picture of her, i guess she still doing trials?

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.

Nightlord01 · « **Reply #773 on:** 09 May 2019, 07:10:38 »

Quote from: Wrangler on 09 May 2019, 06:57:00

I haven't read INS Vikramaditya being deployed to Japan. I found more recent picture of her, i guess she still doing trials?

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.

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.

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #774 on:** 09 May 2019, 08:14:41 »

Quote from: DoctorMonkey on 09 May 2019, 04:02:03

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.

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.

Colt Ward · « **Reply #775 on:** 09 May 2019, 09:10:16 »

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?

Wrangler · « **Reply #776 on:** 09 May 2019, 12:35:27 »

Quote from: Colt Ward on 09 May 2019, 09:10:16

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?

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.

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #777 on:** 09 May 2019, 12:55:01 »

Or declare "we have made the greatest thing in the world and there's no need to make any more." See also PAKFA...

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #778 on:** 09 May 2019, 14:42:47 »

Quote from: glitterboy2098 on 09 May 2019, 08:14:41

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.

Wrangler · « **Reply #779 on:** 13 May 2019, 15:25:48 »

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.

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.