Naval Pictures X: Underway on Nuclear Power

[glitterboy2098]

It's always Harriers and/or F-35Bs for modern straight decked flat tops

the french market Rafales for use on such carriers, and the swedes have been marketing navalized gripens for such use. and Harriers are being phased out by basically everyone.
(i'm discounting the Mig-29K's in use by russia and india, since italy isn't likely to be buying russian)

i suspect it'll be F-35's, but there are other options out there.

[Gorgon]

The Italian Navy is currently receiving their small number (20-ish) of F-35Bs, while still operating their old Harriers. I assume that they will be phased out as soon as they got enough F-35 to staff their carriers.

[I am Belch II]

I guess the double tower on aircraft carriers is becoming more of a thing now.

[chanman]

the french market Rafales for use on such carriers, and the swedes have been marketing navalized gripens for such use. and Harriers are being phased out by basically everyone.
(i'm discounting the Mig-29K's in use by russia and india, since italy isn't likely to be buying russian)

i suspect it'll be F-35's, but there are other options out there.

None of the straight-deckers with or without ski-jumps have arrestor gear for landing conventional aircraft (unlike the Russian, Chinese, and Indian STOBAR carriers). And for that kind of landing arrangement, an angled flight deck becomes immensely helpful for safety reasons like ease of going around after a missed approach.

The Harrier fleets being phased out was a driver for why the F-35B's development took priority over the simpler A variant where the timeline wasn't as urgent.

[chanman]

Speaking of, the GE LM2500 turbines are everywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_LM2500#Applications

[Daryk]

Even on trailers! :D

[Wrangler]

Not Quite a navy picture, but nautical problem never the less.

Video Link

This is a Russian Tanker Volgoneft-212 from pilot house view, which rough waves snapped the bow off the ship in the Black Sea on December 15th 2024.   What not pictured is it's sistership Volkoneft-239 was also damaged but not losing it's bow.   Crew of 12 of 13 was rescue and are doing fine but unfortunately a single sailor was killed, rest of the ship remains afloat at the moment.      A poster on Reddit said in ship's history ship was 70 years old and was cut in half to be shortened in the 90s. There was also reports of a general lack of maintenance.   

Also posted on ABC News

[Daryk]

It seems the Russians don't need any help to lose ships in the Black Sea...

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

There was also reports of a general lack of maintenance.   

Are there any Russian ships that that's not true for?

[Wrangler]

The USS Chicago at the Hunter Point Naval Yard in 1961 being converted into a Guided Missile Cruiser.

I always wondered if Navy wasn't so keen for new hulls, if she or her sisterships were converted to carry Mk 41 VLS launcher, I would think it would have had more throwing power than Ticonderogas did since. The Ticos were essentially Spurance Class Destroyer hull with new superstructure.

I do understand the Steam plant if not entire ships were aging to the point they were higher cost to upkeep.

[worktroll]

The Mk 41 VLS entered service in 1986. At that point, USS Chicago was 42 years, and two wars, old. (And also decomissioned for 6 years at that point.) Time in service just didn't overlap the new toys.

Would have been a conventionally-powered Kirov challenger, though.

[Weirdo]

Yeah, at some point the hull is just too old for combat service, no matter how many times you refit it.

Throw weight isn't everything. If it can't survive combat and the ocean at the same time, that's just a waste of missile cells and sailors.

[Fat Guy]

The Albany class is hands down the ugliest warship in the history of the US Navy.

[Colt Ward]

Is that a pair of radomes stacked between the forward missile launcher and the 'tower' of the superstructure?

[nerd]

Those would be the AN/SPG-49 directors for the Talos missiles. Talos was the largest and longest ranged of the three T SAMS (RIM-2 Terrier and RIM-24 Tartar). Its performance during the Vietnam War was impressive, capable of shooting down MiGs at over 60 miles, but the RIM-67 Standard SM-1ER offered similar performance, but in a much smaller size.

[chanman]

Is that a pair of radomes stacked between the forward missile launcher and the 'tower' of the superstructure?

You see the similar-looking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPG-62 on newer AEGIS ships too. Two side-by-side just above and behind the bridge of Ticos, and then two more superfiring on top of the aft superstructure.

USS Anzio's rear two are easy to see here


And the two forward ones on USS Mobile Bay


The Burkes and related designs (all the Burke sub-classes, Sejong the Great and subclass, all the Japanese Aegis DDGs) have one just forward of the mast, and two just aft of the rear funnel

ROKS Sejong the Great is representative

[Colt Ward]

I just wanted to ask as I was not familiar with the class and as your pictures show they usually go on the superstructure.  Then again, designs bridging gun to missile conversion classes are going to have some quirks as they learned what worked the best.

USN projects of the late 50s and early 60s get interesting.  Things we take for granted now as the 'best' solutions- such as getting coastal or fleet radar coverage.

[chanman]

The Albany class is hands down the ugliest warship in the history of the US Navy.

I think the USS Brooklyn ACR-3 gives the Albanys a run for their money with a distinctly French pre-dreadnought look to her with her tumblehome and lozenge turret arrangement. The paint scheme helps a lot, but that's probably true of the Albany-class CG conversions too. They'd probably look better with a white-and-buff paint scheme.





The Albany-class seem like they might have given better service than the UK's Tiger-class helo carrier conversions though. The big hangar and flight deck are practical, but the tacked-on nature is apparent.

[Weirdo]

The Albany class is hands down the ugliest warship in the history of the US Navy.

Can't remember if I've told the story here, but my father served on Albany's last cruise. The story he loves to tell involves them shooting the crap out of the Atlantic Ocean, because any ammo left onboard when they pulled into port, they'd be the ones unloading it.

[Daryk]

I have to disagree about the Albany... Zumwalt looks worse in my opinion... ;)

[I am Belch II]

I think the Albany isn't one of the better-looking ships, but not the worse. The tall towers of smokestacks were very tall compared to other ships.

[Wrangler]

It's not THAT hideous.

[chanman]

A truly bonkers missile loadout, but the need to have essentially a missile assembly line at both ends of the ship that could slide finished RIM-8 Talos missiles out horizontally on the launcher probably dictated a lot of the layout. The wing launchers for Tartar missiles (you can just make out the smaller twin launcher below the bridge superstructure) are a detail I've never noticed before.

RIM-8 Talos


I'm guessing that wiring and electronics of the time might have required the directors to be physically close to the missiles, forcing the bridge superstructure to be behind and taller to see over the directors, and then the funnels raised to clear the bridge?

[chanman]

It's not THAT hideous.

It needs Darth Vader standing on it, cape billowing as he watches an LCS run away at ludicrous speed

[Daryk]

Floating buildings are ugly to me... :p

[worktroll]

A truly bonkers missile loadout, but the need to have essentially a missile assembly line at both ends of the ship that could slide finished RIM-8 Talos missiles out horizontally on the launcher probably dictated a lot of the layout.

And remember, an assembled Talos is about the same size as a telephone pole.

[chanman]

USS Columbus. I've highlighted the location of the Tartar missile launcher. There's one on the opposite side, and I imagine the missile feed system must have been... interesting.


USS Albany firing missiles from both Talos launchers and the port Tartar launcher

[chanman]

Some ships I'm personally completely unfamiliar with from the transitional era after WW2 and before the mid-70s or so when we're fully into the missile age.

USS Norfolk DL-1 destroyer leader (class of 1). Extremely large for a destroyer at the time (540 feet long, over 5000 tons displacement puts around a Dido-class AA cruiser in size, displacement, and complement (over 500). Wikipedia says she was built on a 'light cruiser hull' which I assume means Atlanta family since it's a lot smaller than a Cleveland or successor.

I assume that had she stayed in service to the 1975 reclassification, she might have gotten a cruiser designation like the rest of the DLGs


USS Mitscher first in a class of 4 in her original configuration. Also getting close to the length of modern destroyers (493 ft) and much heavier than WW2 DDs (~5000 tonnes). Eventually two of the class (USS Mitscher and USS John S. McCain) were refit as DDGs with a single arm launcher for Tartar missiles


After refit in 1975


The Forrest Sherman-class were smaller and lighter (418 ft. 4000 tons full load) and like the Spruance-class seemed to lead to a bunch of experimental fits. They served all the way up to nearly the end of the Cold War

USS Decatur (DDG-31) after conversion to a DDG with a Mk. 13 launcher replacing one of the aft guns (one of four converted this way)


USS Barry (DD-933) with the same gun replaced with ASROC (8 conversions as the Barry-subclass)


USS Forrest Sherman (DD-931) keeping the gun in X position



Charles F. Adams-class designed from the outset to be DDGs as a development of the Forrest Shermans
The German museum ship Mölders. Not decommissioned until 2003 and had by then be refit with a pair of RAM launchers


Australia also operated the type
HMAS Hobart


HMAS Perth and HMAS Brisbane


One of the earlier ships in the class, USS Henry B. Wilson. Later ships switched to a single-arm launcher


British Whitby-class frigate in Amsterdam in 1969. In service from 1956 to 1974 and seemingly never fitted with missiles

[nerd]

USS Norfolk (DL-1), was originally CLK-1, a light cruiser hull with the space for electronics to hunt submarines. She was also the first post World War II major surface combatant built.

The Forrest Sherman class was really the first major production effort in the 1950s. The Charles F. Adams class ships were extended Forrest Shermans with a Tartar weapon system and ASROC included in the design. If you look at the profile, the layout is extremely similar, particularly masts, stacks, and bridge.  The ships lasted as long as they did in US service mostly from the 600 Ship Navy plan in the 1980s. The Australians used Ikara vice ASROC amidships, for the same role. They were the last steam powered destroyers the US Navy built.

[chanman]

USS Norfolk (DL-1), was originally CLK-1, a light cruiser hull with the space for electronics to hunt submarines. She was also the first post World War II major surface combatant built.

The Forrest Sherman class was really the first major production effort in the 1950s. The Charles F. Adams class ships were extended Forrest Shermans with a Tartar weapon system and ASROC included in the design. If you look at the profile, the layout is extremely similar, particularly masts, stacks, and bridge.  The ships lasted as long as they did in US service mostly from the 600 Ship Navy plan in the 1980s. The Australians used Ikara vice ASROC amidships, for the same role. They were the last steam powered destroyers the US Navy built.

Judging by the size, I assume the light cruiser hull would have been an Atlanta or subclass instead of a Cleveland, Fargo, or Worcester.

It's also neat seeing the progression from not even having a helipad to a helipad, to adding a hangar during refit with the Belknap-class DLG/CG.