09-10-2003 01:38									#61
	Re: Port Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by pchang 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.

Cause they were busy shuttling fighters Wake and other islands (Guam? PI?) where an attack WAS expected. As it was not at Pearl.

	09-10-2003 02:14									#62
	exactly Get a bigger avatar today!

sneak attacks are unpredictable for both the attacker and the defender.

	09-10-2003 02:18									#63
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Japher 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...

There are a lot of engineering, fire control and damage control issues - propulsion fuel bunkerage is well below the waterline, in double hulled tankage with transfer pumps, etc., to minimize loss and fire/explosion hazards.


Replacing that mostly static storage with extra ordance requires more handling, loading and offloading equipment, access space, blast containment, and other stuff along the path the ordnance has to be moved to get it on the ship and into storage, then out of storage onto attack aircraft.

A lot of weight and space gets taken up by that.

	09-10-2003 02:36									#64
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat There are a lot of engineering, fire control and damage control issues - propulsion fuel bunkerage is well below the waterline, in double hulled tankage with transfer pumps, etc., to minimize loss and fire/explosion hazards. Replacing that mostly static storage with extra ordance requires more handling, loading and offloading equipment, access space, blast containment, and other stuff along the path the ordnance has to be moved to get it on the ship and into storage, then out of storage onto attack aircraft. A lot of weight and space gets taken up by that.

This may be a bit of miscommunication. I think he wasn't talking about actually switching to nuclear power with an already built carrier but designing one from the ground up. You can put things that work down in the space which would have otherwise held the fuel. It may be that there are all sort of issues that prevent you from simply stacking ordinence in the excess total carrier volume freed up by the switch, but since the original ordinence volume had the same issues, you're still looking at a percentage increase that's significant.

	09-10-2003 03:13									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen 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.

I was thinking of the US navy during WW1. After the war's end the USN mothballed over one hundred and fifty destroyers! In the 1940s the US gave 100 of them to GB via lend-lease, but still had plenty left for itself.

I might add that it was the destoryers which saw action during the war. The big ships just sailed over to GB and looked pretty all tied up at dock alongside the British battle fleet, which was also all tied up at dock.

	09-10-2003 03:57									#66
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove I was thinking of the US navy during WW1. After the war's end the USN mothballed over one hundred and fifty destroyers! In the 1940s the US gave 100 of them to GB via lend-lease, but still had plenty left for itself. I might add that it was the destoryers which saw action during the war. The big ships just sailed over to GB and looked pretty all tied up at dock alongside the British battle fleet, which was also all tied up at dock.

I think that's a little exaggerated. According to this, the US built around 64 destroyers between 1914-1918. With 2 losses, taht leaves 114 at war's end.

By 1939, the US had 181 destroyers. 50 of them were given to the UK in exchange for 8 base rights in the Atlantic.

	09-10-2003 04:29									#67
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Don't just look at the combat usage issue. Look at usage in normal operations. Transits, showing the flag, etc. Conventional carriers are not bad, but I think nukes still end up being a little bit better in carriers.

And of course in submarines, nuke power allows you to have a true submarine.

	09-10-2003 04:52									#68
	Re: full operations Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by pchang 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.

Having spent 3.5 years on a conventional ship, a destroyer to be exact, over half of our refuelings were via underway replenishment.

ACK!

	09-10-2003 05:55									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

You mean a "target". BTW, you look gooood in crosshairs.

	09-10-2003 06:10									#70
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by TCO You mean a "target". BTW, you look gooood in crosshairs.

That's what we said about you......

ACK!

	09-10-2003 06:23									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You know the preferred method of ASW detection for a destroyer?

Green flare.

SEriously, one 637 could cause a wake of destruction for a US SAG or CVBG.

	09-10-2003 06:27									#72
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Depends on the sub's captain. We are targets for the first attack, but it's the extraction that we will get you.

In theory.

ACK!

	09-10-2003 06:29									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Tuberski That's what we said about you......

EDIT: Wrong word, for us change target to whale......

ACK!

	09-10-2003 06:32									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tuberski Depends on the sub's captain. We are targets for the first attack, but it's the extraction that we will get you. In theory. ACK!

It's a lot of theory. I have done a buttload of periscope appraoches. And have also spent time at AS on a CVBG. It is night and day.

The surface-pukes celebrate when they find us. We watch you guys all day long. EVen when not in exercises. We have a loaded gun pointed to your head all the time...


BANG!

	09-10-2003 07:58									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen I think that's a little exaggerated. According to this, the US built around 64 destroyers between 1914-1918. With 2 losses, taht leaves 114 at war's end. By 1939, the US had 181 destroyers. 50 of them were given to the UK in exchange for 8 base rights in the Atlantic.

Sometimes these figures include reserves, sometimes they don't. You also have to consider different classes of ships. Sometimes escorts are included as destroyers, sometimes they aren't.

	09-10-2003 09:59									#76
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by panag not to mention all the ships that are planned in the next years and all the ones that can be reactivated on a short notice , .... have a nice day

It can take up to 45 to 60 days or more to reactivated a ship.

	09-10-2003 10:05									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: When the last sailor walked off the amphibious ship Anchorage this week, ending the ship's 34 years of naval service, the Navy's fleet of warships shrank to its smallest size since before World War I. Above, the Anchorage pulls into the 32nd Street Naval Station in July.

I worked on the Anchorage when it was at Mare Island in the late 60s or early 70s. There was cook on the Anchorage that was my petty officer when I was station at Naval Training Center in 62/3

	12-10-2003 23:10									#78
	Full PM-box? Change here!

as for replacing fuel with something else.

Well you do gain space by going nuclear. Though nuke plants do take up a lot of space. But believe it or not carriers are still hurting for space. At least usable space.

Keep in mind that the navy uses fuel as ballast. This is one of the reasons we kept all of our tanks at least at 95% unless it is being used. Or we prefer to have it almost empty. Having the liquids sloshing around can be bad for stability.

Removing all that fuel may cause the ship to ride up higher. Though this is offset by all the lead, steel, poly, and water shielding we use.

But going nuclear is a good idea for carriers. Because they do require so much fuel. So it definately saves space.

But smaller ships probably need the fuel for better stability. I know on my last ship, the thing was rough in heavy waters when the fuel tanks were low. It was better to have them high.

And you guys should take a look at the gas turbine technology. They really do put the old steam plants to shame and make them almost obsolete.

	12-10-2003 23:39									#79
	Inflate your Upload Space

I like the modern, sporty, hi-tech distroyers with killer cruise missles.

	13-10-2003 00:40									#80
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Odin I like the modern, sporty, hi-tech distroyers with killer cruise missles.

Not as "Sporty" as a DDG, but we still kill Iraqis good.

	13-10-2003 07:26									#81
	Tired of ads?

The US navy really has a wonderful tradition and was a worthy successor to the Brits.

	13-10-2003 08:00									#82
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I've heard that the newer ships are requiring many fewer personnel (less than 1/2). Is this so, or just a lot of Pentagon hot air?

	13-10-2003 08:00									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

and we're building new traditions.

new females going into deck division, often sleep with everyone in deck division

	13-10-2003 08:40									#84
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Gas Turbine engines require complicated transmissions. This could be a big failure point. Also, they guzzle gas.

	13-10-2003 08:57									#85
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Dissident and we're building new traditions. new females going into deck division, often sleep with everyone in deck division

that doesn't sound good...

are the males doing it also?

Jon Miller

	13-10-2003 09:25									#86
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by pchang Gas Turbine engines require complicated transmissions. This could be a big failure point. Also, they guzzle gas.

I'm certain they are more efficient than steam plants.

	14-10-2003 01:24									#87
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DanS I've heard that the newer ships are requiring many fewer personnel (less than 1/2). Is this so, or just a lot of Pentagon hot air?

The DD(x) will, but not the current generation, no.

	14-10-2003 04:10									#88
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

DD(x)? Explain.

	14-10-2003 04:25									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by pchang Gas Turbine engines require complicated transmissions. This could be a big failure point. Also, they guzzle gas.

Don't they usually hook them up to an electric generator, and then power the propellors with electric motors? If you do that you don't have to have a transmission, and the fuel efficiency can actually be very good.

	14-10-2003 04:54									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

nope, that's not the case.

The gas turbine is kinda like a jet engine- just for boats . But anyways the turbine goes through reduction gears and turns the shaft. Similar to a steam turbine, but uses the fact that igniting the fuel causes air to expand and then passes through the turbine blades etc.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/turbine1.htm

from that site the only real disadvantage is it does burn more fuel when idling. But that's not a serious concern for a ship, as navy ships are almost always moving. And the cost of manufacturing the turbine is higher than for a diesal engine.

Gas Turbines on gas turbien boats do not provide electricity. They only power the turbien which turns the shaft. Also the hot exhaust goes through a reboiler which provides low pressure steam for the ship (for the galley, and hot water heaters etc.)

Electricity is made by diesal generators. There are 4 I believe on a cruiser if I recall correctly- for reduncy purposes mainly. 2 probably can provide most electrical power.

Last edited by Dis on 14-10-2003 at 05:02