... Or make your catapult use steam so that you can launch your non-functional hunks of metal into the water off your dead ship?Originally Posted by Cosmin
... Or make your catapult use steam so that you can launch your non-functional hunks of metal into the water off your dead ship?
hey, catapults worked for the romans! it's good enough for us!
I'm not having that discussion again.
The overall point is that nuclear propulsion for carriers is very expensive, for little practical operational gain. And for small carriers it is just way over the top. Even if there's the 'advantage' of having steam available for the catapults (lol).
Anyway, talk about reverting back to 'old stuff'. Check out the tumblehome hull design on the DD-X (or DD-100, or Zumwalt, or is that project still even alive?).
So back to pictures: here's a picture of the technology demonstrator of the 'advanced electric ship' (whatever it is going to be called):
Yeah the first Zumwalt Class destroyer comes off the line in April next year or that's the plan. Sea trials begins later in that year and then the second one comes off the line in 2014.I'm not having that discussion again.
The overall point is that nuclear propulsion for carriers is very expensive, for little practical operational gain. And for small carriers it is just way over the top. Even if there's the 'advantage' of having steam available for the catapults (lol).
Anyway, talk about reverting back to 'old stuff'. Check out the tumblehome hull design on the DD-X (or DD-100, or Zumwalt, or is that project still even alive?).
So back to pictures: here's a picture of the technology demonstrator of the 'advanced electric ship' (whatever it is going to be called):
Only 3 are being made apparently so this whole thing is a bit of a disaster for almost 10 billion USD.
The Arleigh Burke Class is undergoing modernisation soonish as well so it's just a bit pointless.
The Batboat.
One of the bigger benefits of nuclear carriers is that you don't need fuel but still have fuel bays. US supercarriers are actually gigantic fleet oilers. Also give more room for ordinance and jet fuel. Whether that is worth the cost, I don't know.
Not really, maybe only for the US in the Pacific, perhaps.
But more pictures.
Here's a replica of the Duyfken (little dove). The Santa Maria of Australia, the VOC ship that 'discovered' that subcontinent. Recognise the shape? Officially it was termed a 'jacht', or 'hunt', as in scout though.
up until flush deck ships became common, everything was build like that, Galleons inherited the basic design from the early medieval Holk type vessels.
Man that zumwalt is a fugly failure. It looks like pentagon wars, but instead of the bradley fighting vehicle it's that hideous boat.
Not quite. If this had been a Portuguese or Spanish ship of exploration, it would most probably have been a caravel, and look something like this:
You can't just say that everything was build or designed in the same way, even at that time. There were significant differences in design in different parts of Europe at the time, no matter if those ship designs derived from Hulk and Cog designs.
The Duyfken, BTW, is clearly not a Galleon, and I think that a contemporary sailor or shipbuilder would probably have recognised it for a Dutch build yacht.
(edit: apples, oranges, and pears are all the same fruit, it was only when they came out with bananas that we got something different right?)
Last edited by Bartholomeus Crane; July 22 2012 at 07:31:48 PM.
Slightly off topic: check first if your camera's buffer does more than 16 RAWs on burst first. Most cameras don't have that much buffer to begin with. You might as well just film it. If that fails, a class 10 SDHC card is cheap nowadays and there is no way to be faster with SD.And unrelated to war, some random boat - sequence captured from the London Eye and gifed (poorly) by yours truly. Also need a better camera (card) that doesn't stop and churn RAWs after 16 shots -.-
Spoiler:
nevar forget
I've always wondered how those ships handled high seas.Spoiler:
I don't think essentially limitless operational range, a reduced amount of combustibles, lowered carbon footprint, and massive power generation capacity (double the amount currently needed for the Gerald R Ford's operations to allow for technology upgrades) are minimal gains over diesel generator powered carriers.
It's an aircraft carrier so that whole carbon footprint addition on the reasoning was hopefully tacked in with a guffaw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumblehome
So if I understand it right it gets tossed around less because it doesn't give a damn about the peak of the wave and goes through it so it has a more or less stable environment. However it also is less adaptive to angry holes being poked in to it due to the same principles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumblehome
Constitution is a beautiful ship. Albeit one which caused a certain amount of discomfort to His Majesty's Royal Navy.
USS Constitution vs HMS Guerriere ...
Can't find a painting of similar quality for her shattering of HMS Java. Patrick O'Brien has a vivid account in his novel 'Fortune of War' however.
Is that a special underwater flag on the submarine?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks