Author Topic: USS George H.W. Bush commissioned (Read 15691 times)

S. Williamson · « **Reply #25 on:** January 10, 2009, 08:57:28 PM »

Quote from: AJ Dual on January 10, 2009, 11:45:55 AM

Personally, I think the aircraft lifts on those ships are the most visually impressive thing. They way a huge chunk of the deck just drops or rises out of sight, with crew, ordnance carts, and a jet or two, and that very smooth acceleration/deceleration looks like something out of a sci-fi movie.

And that they're well-enough designed and made that if all but one cable snaps, it will still work.

K Frame · « **Reply #26 on:** January 10, 2009, 10:32:27 PM »

"Reagan's military build-up broke the spine of the Iron Curtain, which is a damned hard act to follow..."

Exactly.

Largest Naval peace time build up in history.

Waitone · « **Reply #27 on:** January 11, 2009, 12:54:02 AM »

Carriers have to literally be rebuilt every few years. The wear and tear of deployments and constant operations in a very confined area produces accelerated wear on just about everything inside the ship. Overhaul consists of literally gutting the interior and rebuilding it from scratch. IIRC at any given time two carriers are undergoing refit. I don't think they pull the reactors but just about everything else gets sunned.

I had the privilege of working on the Reagan for short periods of time during its construction. The size of everything was what impressed me. Anchor chain links appeared to be the size of a VW Bug. What did surprise me was how thin the hull was.

Bogie · « **Reply #28 on:** January 11, 2009, 03:45:22 AM »

Obsolete? When?

Concepts:

Gewehr 98
M1911A1
AK-47

If it works, it is not obsolete.

K Frame · « **Reply #29 on:** January 11, 2009, 09:21:53 AM »

Integrated systems go obsolete MUCH faster than individual items.

Would you want to take, say, a Renault FT-17 tank into battle today the same way that you might take a 1911 into battle?

After all, the Renault "works" if it moves on its tracks and the gun fires, right? And it was a main battle tank then, so it must be capable of being a main battle tank now, right?

Just FYI, this is an FT-17...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/George_S._Patton_-_France_-_1918.jpg

Gowen · « **Reply #30 on:** January 11, 2009, 10:02:51 AM »

thank goodness for Firefox image zoom. I had to zoom out a few times just to see what that picture was.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #31 on:** January 11, 2009, 01:59:41 PM »

Quote from: Cromlech on January 10, 2009, 07:48:01 PM

Our flagship is quite a veteran, though admittedly it hasn't seen much recent action.
HMS Victory Fires Full Broadside

Ours has gone out under 1/3 of full sail in recent years, up the coast on her own power, and she's only ten years newer.

She could cross the Atlantic under full sail, even, she's that sound, but she's a national treasure, our oldest still-commissioned warship, and they'd never risk such a thing.

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #32 on:** January 11, 2009, 02:14:56 PM »

Wow.

And I used to get into trouble for posting large images...

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #33 on:** January 11, 2009, 02:21:33 PM »

The Constitution, I presume? I'd like to see that old ship next to the GHW Bush.

Cromlech · « **Reply #34 on:** January 11, 2009, 04:54:12 PM »

Nice pictures Manedwolf!

I first gained a love and admiration for these kinds of ships after watching stuff like Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

K Frame · « **Reply #35 on:** January 11, 2009, 04:56:14 PM »

Sorry about that. It didn't show up all that big when I grabbed the link.

Cromlech · « **Reply #36 on:** January 11, 2009, 05:05:10 PM »

USS Constitution
HMS Victory

Shame there aren't more videos on YouTube, and with higher quality. Beautiful ships though.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #37 on:** January 11, 2009, 07:00:39 PM »

Quote from: Cromlech on January 11, 2009, 04:54:12 PM

Nice pictures Manedwolf! I first gained a love and admiration for these kinds of ships after watching stuff like Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

I love tall ships. This was the view here last year when a replica East Indiaman came into Portsmouth harbor for tours.

They also have the Tall Ships event in Boston, where the wharf is lined with masts and furled sails as far as you can see...and you just have to pause a moment and realize that that is exactly what that same wharf looked like 200 years ago when they were the engine of commerce. :)

gunband · « **Reply #38 on:** January 11, 2009, 08:59:04 PM »

Things you'll never, ever see:
USS Barack H. Obama
...not even on a tug.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 11, 2009, 09:07:40 PM »

Quote from: gunband on January 11, 2009, 08:59:04 PM

Things you'll never, ever see:
USS Barack H. Obama
...not even on a tug.

Let us hope.

280plus · « **Reply #40 on:** January 11, 2009, 09:39:42 PM »

When I ws in we escorted the CVA America which I believe was WWII era, its since been decommisioned. My ship DDG-14 was built 1963 and decommisioned in 1992 or so.

Things have changed. When I was in 1975-1980 we called taking stores on at sea from a larger ship "Underway Replenishment" (UNREP) Now they call it "Connected Replenishment" (CONREP). In my day the process of UNREP was classified because the Russians did not know how to do it side by side, they did it end to end, one ship following another. Just today I was watching a thing on carriers and they pretty much showed the whole process, mechanics and everything, right on the boob tube. If you really want to get a feel for the size of a carrier, go on board one. I went onto one, can't remember which, and walked up 6 stories of stairs to the entrance and I was still quite a ways below the flight deck. I was in awe. Also, the top of our mast was 60 ft above the water and when we unrepped from a carrier it too topped out way below the flight deck. it was like, "WOWWW! Our mast doesn't even reach the flight deck!"

roo_ster · « **Reply #41 on:** January 11, 2009, 11:32:21 PM »

Quote from: gunband on January 11, 2009, 08:59:04 PM

Things you'll never, ever see:
USS Barack H. Obama
...not even on a tug.

Bet they said that about James Earl Carter.

RocketMan · « **Reply #42 on:** January 12, 2009, 12:42:08 AM »

Quote from: gunband on January 11, 2009, 08:59:04 PM

Things you'll never, ever see:
USS Barack H. Obama
...not even on a tug.

Yes, ~~you~~ we will. Eventually.

Fixed it myself.

Boomhauer · « **Reply #43 on:** January 12, 2009, 01:06:46 AM »

Always glad to see a new carrier come to life...

Much rather my tax dollars be spent on one than redistributed as welfare...

K Frame · « **Reply #44 on:** January 12, 2009, 01:08:30 AM »

"When I ws in we escorted the CVA America which I believe was WWII era..."

Not even close. The America was laid down in 1961 and commissioned in 1965.

DDG 14 -- USS Buchanan.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #45 on:** January 12, 2009, 02:18:02 AM »

Quote from: Avenger29 on January 12, 2009, 01:06:46 AM

Always glad to see a new carrier come to life...

Much rather my tax dollars be spent on one than redistributed as welfare...

When I was watching the commissioning of the shiny, super-high-tech attack sub USS New Hampshire, here, I had to just grin at the idea of the Canadian groups visiting and being terribly jealous. Canada has...um...not had good luck with subs. What was it, one used British one they bought caught fire halfway back to Canada, another sank at the dock and not in the way it was supposed to sink, and there was some other problems?

buzz_knox · « **Reply #46 on:** January 12, 2009, 10:47:03 AM »

Quote from: jfruser on January 10, 2009, 06:13:02 PM

Hmm, building the Nimitz class since 1972, for a total of 10 carriers.

I guess that lack of a competitor willing to build a real carrier on the scale of the Nimitz has led to a little stagnation in development.

I would have thought 36 years would have seen more than fine-tuning. But at $6B+ a pop, the cost to develop a new design may be prohibitive.

There have been many efforts at new designs, nearly all of which were killed due to cost issues or because no one could agree on what the future would require. CVN-78, the Gerald Ford, is an interim design that will implement/test some concepts for the next generation carrier.

Tallpine · « **Reply #47 on:** January 12, 2009, 01:41:44 PM »

Quote

attack sub USS New Hampshire

I thought all of the state-named subs were boomers

(Ohio class)

Or is the Navy just trying to confuse me again :rolleyes:

K Frame · « **Reply #48 on:** January 12, 2009, 01:47:11 PM »

Nope, they're now naming attack submarines for states, as well.

It's one of four Virginia-class boats currently in service. They're intended to replace the Los Angeles class attack subs.

MillCreek · « **Reply #49 on:** January 12, 2009, 01:55:20 PM »

Quote from: Tallpine on January 12, 2009, 01:41:44 PM

I thought all of the state-named subs were boomers (Ohio class)

Or is the Navy just trying to confuse me again :rolleyes:

The USS Henry Jackson, based out of Bangor, is a Trident. It was named in honor of our Washington senator, who was a very good friend indeed of the Defense Department.

News:

Author Topic: USS George H.W. Bush commissioned (Read 15691 times)