Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Fly320s on January 10, 2009, 11:04:14 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479087,00.html
I thought naming vessels after living people was bad form. Guess not.
[I edited the thread subject for spelling]
-
That's quite a thing, to have your name on such a vessel. Impressive.
-
Makes the Sugar Mama look like a Dinghy.....
:laugh:
-
It amazes me how those things can stay upright in the water. How much draft does she have?
It just seems that if a 10-ton (or whatever) warplane lands cockeyed to one side, it should capsize the whole ship.
I love aircraft carriers.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg119.imageshack.us%2Fimg119%2F9787%2Fussgeorgehwbushzm4.jpg&hash=923979faad02e9a06633bb85797ba7edf2e4d244)
[Keanu Reeves]Whoah...[/Keanu Reeves]
-
It amazes me how those things can stay upright in the water. How much draft does she have?
It just seems that if a 10-ton (or whatever) warplane lands cockeyed to one side, it should capsize the whole ship.
I love aircraft carriers.
Probably has to do with the deep keel. The weight of the water on both sides keeps it upright, much like how a telephone pole keeps from falling over.
-
Probably has to do with the deep keel. The weight of the water on both sides keeps it upright, much like how a telephone poll stays keeps from falling over.
And I suspect the pair of nuclear reactor thingys below-decks add quite a bit of ballast too.
Also, immediately below the flight deck, much of the space is a large hangar/maintenance area for aircraft which is mostly air by volume, so such an aircraft carrier is not as top-heavy as it looks.
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. :cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qREhXTubSYU
-
That's faster than many hotel elevators.
-
That pic of the bow of the ship makes it look small, here is a pic to put some size perspective:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ff4%2FUSSRONALDREAGANgoodshot.jpg%2F800px-USSRONALDREAGANgoodshot.jpg&hash=7fb8d4069a9d653d2d72b7e495be4c6857baad5e)
Look at the number of people on the deck of the USS Ronald Reagan
-
http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/bush/
The George H. W. Bush (CVN 77) is the 10th and final Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. This evolutionary ship will pave the way to a new class of carriers. Named after the nation’s 41st president, this powerful warship of the 21st century will feature numerous improvements and modernizations. Learn more about this state-of-the-art ship by visiting the links below.
Size
Towers 20 stories above the waterline with a 4.5-acre flight deck
1,092 feet long: nearly as long as the Empire State Building is tall
-
We've been naming carriers after living people for some time, now.
Looks like all of these ships were christened while the individual was still alive: Carl Vinson, Hyman G. Rickover, Arleigh Burke, John C. Stennis, Bob Hope, Ronald Reagan, Nitze, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush.
I'm not a fan of it, myself, nor am I really a fan of naming carriers after people.
Still, they've at least managed to name the carriers after people who were either in the Navy or who had a deep impact on the Navy, like Vinson, Stennis, and Reagan.
-
And George H.W. Bush. ;)
-
And George H.W. Bush. ;)
I wouldn't say that he had that much of an impact on the Navy.
He was in the Navy, served honorably, but his Presidency didn't really affect the Navy in the way that the others did.
His presidency did start seeing the beginnings of the military drawdowns that highlighted Clinton's two terms.
-
I dunno.
Ronald Reagan was a hell of a fine actor in wartime flicks, I'll give you that.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/military.html
George H.W. Bush got to fly combat sorties, and even served as an observer with one hell of a ringside seat for a short while.
What they did for the Navy afterwards as sitting presidents is open to conjecture.
Reagan's military build-up broke the spine of the Iron Curtain, which is a damned hard act to follow, but I'm appreciative of Bush Sr. and his efforts to revamp the Intelligence Community, as well as getting START I and START II nuclear treaties rolling. It was a fine start, but had his hands not been tied by the legalities of Gulf War I, maybe Gulf War II would never have happened. All those had some effect on the Navy, but pale in comparison to Reagan's legacy, I'll readily admit. I don't know if any president since will ever garner that much respect from the military, honestly.
-
Apparently, to considerably less fanfare, they launched the USS George W. Bush today as well.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fevobroker.com%2Fimages%2F400_Redneck_boat.jpg&hash=6dea991c5749a9cd5741b069002860789c05566d)
-
I wouldn't say that [George H.W. Bush] had that much of an impact on the Navy.
Well, he lost a TBM, IIRC =|
I hope we don't lose his namesake CVN ... :O
-
My wife's Cousin, a Northrup Grumman employee, is on the team that built the ship, and will be on the maiden voyage in a support role.
Chris
-
My wife's Cousin, a Northrup Grumman employee, is on the team that built the ship, and will be on the maiden voyage in a support role.
Chris
I see .... apparently the Navy figures that the folks who built it better be willing to go out on it the first time =|
-
He described it as a reward to those who worked on the project. They'll be expected to help troubleshoot any problems, but he's expecting it to be more of a pleasure cruise than anything.
He's in his early 20s and this is his first job out of college. Yeah, he's enjoying himself. :)
Chris
-
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.
Makes me wonder about some of our hardware: Might it be in service as long as the old wooden ships of the line, to the tune of 50-100 years, barring accident or destruction?
System ::::: 1st_whatever ::::: Years_in_Use
B52 ::::: 1952 ::::: 56
C130 ::::: 1954 ::::: 54
U2 ::::: 1955 ::::: 53
UH1 ::::: 1955 ::::: 53
P3 ::::: 1959 ::::: 49
E2 ::::: 1960 ::::: 48
M113 ::::: 1960 ::::: 48
UH46 ::::: 1964 ::::: 44
AH1 ::::: 1965 ::::: 43
C5 ::::: 1968 ::::: 40
F15 ::::: 1972 ::::: 36
Nimitz-class carriers ::::: 1972 ::::: 36
F16 ::::: 1974 ::::: 34
E3 ::::: 1976 ::::: 32
M1 Abrams ::::: 1980 ::::: 28
M2/3 Bradley ::::: 1981 ::::: 27
HMMWV ::::: 1984 ::::: 24
-
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.
Makes me wonder about some of our hardware: Might it be in service as long as the old wooden ships of the line, to the tune of 50-100 years, barring accident or destruction?
System ::::: 1st_whatever ::::: Years_in_Use
B52 ::::: 1952 ::::: 56
C130 ::::: 1954 ::::: 54
U2 ::::: 1955 ::::: 53
UH1 ::::: 1955 ::::: 53
P3 ::::: 1959 ::::: 49
E2 ::::: 1960 ::::: 48
M113 ::::: 1960 ::::: 48
UH46 ::::: 1964 ::::: 44
AH1 ::::: 1965 ::::: 43
C5 ::::: 1968 ::::: 40
F15 ::::: 1972 ::::: 36
Nimitz-class carriers ::::: 1972 ::::: 36
F16 ::::: 1974 ::::: 34
E3 ::::: 1976 ::::: 32
M1 Abrams ::::: 1980 ::::: 28
M2/3 Bradley ::::: 1981 ::::: 27
HMMWV ::::: 1984 ::::: 24
Possibly, though (ships aside) ofc very few of the actual aircraft will be 50+ years old. I think its about what works anyway, in the absence of anyone making anything better, for cheaper - I mean the M1 is still better than the T-90, or whatever T they are at now.
-
Makes me wonder about some of our hardware: Might it be in service as long as the old wooden ships of the line, to the tune of 50-100 years, barring accident or destruction?
Our flagship is quite a veteran, though admittedly it hasn't seen much recent action. =D
HMS Victory Fires Full Broadside (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiRbJRNKyv8)
-
I don't know why when the time comes we wouldn't just retool the carriers as needed. I bet we could get 50 years out of them.
-
I don't know why when the time comes we wouldn't just retool the carriers as needed. I bet we could get 50 years out of them.
Probably far more than that - the principal driving force for getting rid of warships since the 1850s has been because they are obsolete, which those ships arent.
-
Probably far more than that - the principal driving force for getting rid of warships since the 1850s has been because they are obsolete, which those ships arent.
Especially with new designs such as the F35.
-
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. :cool:
And that they're well-enough designed and made that if all but one cable snaps, it will still work. =)
-
"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.
-
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.
-
Obsolete? When?
Concepts:
Gewehr 98
M1911A1
AK-47
If it works, it is not obsolete.
-
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
-
thank goodness for Firefox image zoom. I had to zoom out a few times just to see what that picture was.
-
Our flagship is quite a veteran, though admittedly it hasn't seen much recent action. =D
HMS Victory Fires Full Broadside (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiRbJRNKyv8)
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. ;)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinfo.navy.mil%2Fnavpalib%2Fships%2Fconstitution%2Fsailsail.jpg&hash=16c16ff6e8c9976c7a820840d8cd6c6c9dc2ea8a)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinfo.navy.mil%2Fnavpalib%2Fships%2Fconstitution%2Fs200-sal.jpg&hash=d83d3b7861c545ab3f53a53bd573615f529b7047)
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.
-
Wow.
And I used to get into trouble for posting large images... :O
-
The Constitution, I presume? I'd like to see that old ship next to the GHW Bush. =)
-
Nice pictures Manedwolf! =D 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
-
Sorry about that. It didn't show up all that big when I grabbed the link.
-
USS Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69kr5WpYjgA)
HMS Victory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au08Z3NRi74)
Shame there aren't more videos on YouTube, and with higher quality. Beautiful ships though.
-
Nice pictures Manedwolf! =D 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.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3282%2F2775003448_4890470cb1_o.jpg&hash=cd0c839e9176ee9c2d81887db77d484401d3fbe8)
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. :)
-
Things you'll never, ever see:
USS Barack H. Obama
...not even on a tug.
-
Things you'll never, ever see:
USS Barack H. Obama
...not even on a tug.
Let us hope. :laugh:
-
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!" :O
-
Things you'll never, ever see:
USS Barack H. Obama
...not even on a tug.
Bet they said that about James Earl Carter.
-
Things you'll never, ever see:
USS Barack H. Obama
...not even on a tug.
Yes, you we will. Eventually.
Fixed it myself.
-
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 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
Bet they said that about James Earl Carter.
The Navy named a Seawolf after Carter to ensure that his name would never be on a carrier.
-
"The Navy named a Seawolf after Carter to ensure that his name would never be on a carrier."
Wrong.
Carter was a very well thought of submarine officer and was training for engineering service in nuclear boats when his Father died and he resigned his commission.
Hyman Rickover, the father of the nuclear Navy, thought very highly of Carter and expected that he would make Admiral and be an important member of the nuclear Navy.
-
Boy, what went wrong with that Carter fella? :lol:
-
Carter was a very well thought of submarine officer and was training for engineering service in nuclear boats when his Father died and he resigned his commission.
Hyman Rickover, the father of the nuclear Navy, thought very highly of Carter and expected that he would make Admiral and be an important member of the nuclear Navy.
Quite a tragedy for all of us. Better a good admiral than a bad president =|
Okay, the navy has a new policy - they name boats after whatever they feel like at the moment :laugh:
-
"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.
Damn, I thought one of the ones we escorted was WWII era, can't recall. Me go look,,,
Yes The "Puky Buch"... :laugh:
-
Ok, I was thinking of the Ranger, Keel laid 1954, launched 1956. Decommisioned 1992. Not exactly WWII but close. 38 years.
On 21 February 1979, the Ranger deployed for her 14th WestPac cruise
That's the WESPAC we escorted her on. We were under the command of "Jolly" Roger Barnett who dubbed us the Buchananeers. (Pretty gay if you ask me, we had a pirate's head with a knife in his teeth for a logo :rolleyes: ) However he had connections because he worked with Nixon on SALT II and was the only commander in the Nav that was authorized to fly the skull and crossed bones for his battle flag. All the gayness aside we thought that was pretty cool. :lol:
-
Your Ranger was the second aircraft carrier to be so named in the US fleet.
The first Ranger, CV-4, commissioned 1934, was laid down as the first purpose built American carrier.
She was FAR smaller than the Lexington and Saratoga, and not nearly as capable.
During World War II she was the only one of the pre-war carriers not to see service in the Pacific. She was just too small. She made a good record for herself in the Atlantic, though, in anti-submarine warfare, as a training ship, and as an aircraft ferry.
-
So size DOES matter!?! :O
:laugh: