06-10-2003 02:46									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

this isn't a new ship, but I couldn't resist posting pictures of ships.

I love navy ships





compare a new ship like that, to my old pos

Last edited by Dis on 06-10-2003 at 02:56

	06-10-2003 02:50									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Wow, I never knew the Carrier had a double hull.

	06-10-2003 02:59									#33
	Increase Your PM Length

here's the location of my old ship. : 031° 14' 22.0" North, 071° 16' 35.0" West Depth: 1166 fathoms

yup, fathoms means it's currently underwater

	06-10-2003 03:13									#34
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dissident yup, fathoms means it's currently underwater

Apparently it didn't have two hulls....

It only thought it did.............................

	06-10-2003 03:17									#35
	Re: Re: Re: USN now smallest since before WW1. Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dissident thems fightin' words. prepare to duel

Bring it on fish boy.

Ehhh, wait a second, I want to know what your choice of "weapons" is first............................

	06-10-2003 06:23									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Navy ships rock!

But this doesn't bother me. I'd rather have 5 modern day ACs with full compliment of aircraft opposed to all the ships of the WWII era.

	06-10-2003 06:27									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Now who can find me that very famous picture of the US Pacific fleet where there are literally like 4 aircraft carriers lined up in a row in a big convoy.

Best Navy photograph EVER

	06-10-2003 06:30									#38
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Hey, I didn't know the Navy was integrated in WW2?

And look at the delts on that guy in the front!

Attachment: brother.jpg
This has been downloaded 153 time(s).

	06-10-2003 06:38									#39
	Support Apolyton

The guy must be 50...

	06-10-2003 07:15									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

well it wasn't reasonable to expect there to be all black ships. Though I once heard talk of having an all women submarine . That one would get lost somewhere in the artic- because you can't ask for directions under the polar ice caps.

I'm not exactly sure how integrated the navy was. I'm sure they just had separate berthing compartments. Other than that, I can't see the navy being segregated that much.

	06-10-2003 07:33									#41
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

If I recall correctly, the Navy has almost always been "integrated". Much of the navy during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 was composed of free blacks.

	06-10-2003 10:08									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Hey, I didn't know the Navy was integrated in WW2?

For the most part, it wasn't. Cooks, stewards, colliers, and that was about all the rates open to "coloreds" who had segregated quarters to the extent practicable.

However, everyone had a damage control party and fire control party assignment, and later in the war, some other basic enlisted rates opened up for black sailors.

	06-10-2003 13:57									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hmm... no mention of the largest US aircraft carrier... the UK.

Not that there's a lot of facilities for US ships (nuke subs have a station I think). But as an off-Europe aircraft carrier it makes any nuke powered carrier seem small.

Of course, the running costs are higher!

	06-10-2003 14:46									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The issue I see in this is not a temporary reduction in the number of combatant warships, which can be reversed, but whether the logistic capability is affected.

As warships get more capable and expensive there will inevitably be fewer of them. Not necessarily a problem as the capability of likely threats has declined, if anything, over the last decade.

What has always marked the USN out, ever since the Pacific campaign of WWII, has been its ability to supply a fleet almost anywhere. If the logistics ships - oilers, ammunition, etc. - are being reduced then that could be very bad news. Future budgets could be spent on combatant vessels rather than logistics and the USN capability to keep ships on station reduced.

	06-10-2003 17:10									#45
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Cruddy Hmm... no mention of the largest US aircraft carrier... the UK. Not that there's a lot of facilities for US ships (nuke subs have a station I think). But as an off-Europe aircraft carrier it makes any nuke powered carrier seem small. Of course, the running costs are higher!

Wasn't the UK named "Airbase #10" in 1984 ?

	08-10-2003 07:05									#46
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Wow, I never knew the Carrier had a double hull.

It ain't a carrier....it's a LHA.

	08-10-2003 07:08									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Imagine what the battle of Jutland would have been like if the allies had had even a single nuclear submarine!

	08-10-2003 07:27									#48
	Put an end to popups!

The US rules the waves. I don't see much to worry about here.

Interesting the 300 ships figure. That was roughly what the British had to police global shipping lanes in their heyday. I'm talking about the 18th and 19th century.

	08-10-2003 07:30									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

A man is only truly free...at sea.

	08-10-2003 07:33									#50
	Support Apolyton

I would have liked to have been in the Navy or Merchant shipping but I didn't like science or maths at school so I pretty much ruled that out.

	08-10-2003 07:40									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Who cares about that garbage, where's our space navy?

	08-10-2003 20:50									#52
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Wasn't the UK named "Airbase #10" in 1984 ?

Airstrip One

	08-10-2003 23:42									#53
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove The fleet in WW1 mainly consisted of an enormus number of destroyers because its chief msson was to protect merchant ships from submarines. At the time radar didn't exist and sonar was essentially limited to surveying a small cone of the ocean area directly under the ship. Heck, by the end of WW1 most destroyers had yet to be fitted with sonar, so the primary means of detecting subs was to spot them on the surface. Today's frigates have electronics that can survey hundreds of square miles of ocean with a reasonable probability of finding an enemy sub, so fewer ships are needed.

Not really. The U.S. battle fleet in WW1 was the third largest (by far) in the world, and in overall tonnage it was also third with around a million tons IIRC (Royal Navy was over 2 million and the German Navy between 1.5 and 2).

I don't have the exact tonnage figures at hand but here's a list of the units in Aug 14:

10 - Dreadnoughts
23 - Battleships (pre-Dreadnoughts)
12 - Armored Cruisers
27 - Cruisers (incl. light cruisers)
50 - Destroyers
27 - Submarines

Total - 147 ships.

	09-10-2003 00:09									#54
	nuclear power Inflate your Upload Space

Nuclear powered is overrated for carriers. Sure, the ship has plenty of electricy and can sail around the world many times without refuelling, but the planes all need jet fuel and the ship can only carry so many bullets, bombs, and missiles. You have to constantly resupply carriers every few days under full operations. Adding another supply run to refuel the carrier itself is no big deal.

	09-10-2003 00:26									#55
	Re: nuclear power Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by pchang Nuclear powered is overrated for carriers. Sure, the ship has plenty of electricy and can sail around the world many times without refuelling, but the planes all need jet fuel and the ship can only carry so many bullets, bombs, and missiles. You have to constantly resupply carriers every few days under full operations. Adding another supply run to refuel the carrier itself is no big deal.

I've got to strongly disagree. I think you are heavily exaggerating how often it has to be. (At some point ordinance may be a problem, but that assumes a heavily bombing campaign is going on.) Furthermore, a 100,000 ton carrier would consume one heck of alot of fuel to move it at the speeds it goes at. You're looking at needing a certain size ship to resupply a carrier's other needs. You'd need a seperate large one to supply the carrier's fuel. I also suspect you're going to use up alot of the ship's space holding all that fuel. The basic problem is you are exagerating how often a carrier needs to be supplied, and ignoring that the refueling would have to be done even when full combat opperations are not going on.

	09-10-2003 00:32									#56
	full operations Get a bigger avatar today!

I meant full combat operations - under those conditions, ordnance has to be replaced every 3 days. jet fuel, a little less often.

As for refuelling under normal operations, this is most often done at port for non-carriers. No need to change things for carriers.

	09-10-2003 00:36									#57
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: I meant full combat operations - under those conditions, ordnance has to be replaced every 3 days. jet fuel, a little less often.

Would the ships gain more payload space by switching to nuclear power? I mean no large bulk full of ship fuel? Replace that space with more jet fuel or ammo and the likes... So it could probably stay out longer...

	09-10-2003 00:42									#58
	Re: full operations Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by pchang As for refuelling under normal operations, this is most often done at port for non-carriers. No need to change things for carriers.

Of course, particularly for the US, this potentially makes your Carriers vulnerable to terrorist acts (such as the USS Cole) and other covert opperation strikes. At least for awhile, the US stopped refueling a Middle Eastern ports and did midsea refueling instead. Regardless if you carriers are caught in port refueling when the enemy launches a strike, the consquences are unlikely to be pleasant.

	09-10-2003 00:54									#59
	Remove this text

Checking through my library I found an estimate (based on Jane's figures) that a Nimitz class carrier carries the same sized air group as a Forrestal class. However, although the Nimitz class is larger (by 10-15,000 tons standard displacement - more for the later ships) it carries 90% more aviation fuel and 50% more ordnance, largely due to the space saving on not requiring oil fuel for the ship itself.

That makes a lot of difference over a sustained campaign, particularly not needing oilers to refuel teh carrier itself.

	09-10-2003 01:10									#60
	Port Tired of ads?

Of course, ships go to port to give their crews a break too, terrorists or no. If an enemy launched a sneak attack, you have to accept that a certain fraction of your entire fleet will be in a port somewhere. The key is having good enough spies so that you are not caught totally unaware by the sneak attack. If I recall, there were no carriers at Pearl Harbor despite the fact that they were non-nuclear.