Warships

[lucian]

IndependenceBoth lead ships of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class. The Navy liked them both so much that it just split the contract.

My dad may or may not get work helping with the training program for the Freedom, which is going to be a full VR ship sim in the UT3 engine. The class itself is modular so the ship matters less than whatever mission package is in. This means the Navy can do floating crews, where you just have a crew trained in special ops, but don't need to keep a ship only useful for specops - you just refit it for ASW and put the ASW crew on it.

According to the Perez Report, the quick swap concept doesn't work nearly as well as initially hoped; it would take several weeks to reconfigure an LCS for a given role, rather than the 24 hour period originally intended by the program. Due to various issues and shortcomings, it has been recommended that the LCS program be stopped at 24 ships, rather than the 55 originally planned.

I really like how the report found that they have zero damage control and are entirely unsuited for operations in a hostile combat environment. I expect them to order at least 100 though, just for the cool factor.

Now for ships that can actually take a hit! This is the New Orleans, from the battle of Tassaforanga. Third worse defeat in US naval history after Pearl Harbor and 1st Savo, yet no one ever seems to have heard of it. Best part? After the bow was blown off by a torpedo, they built a new one out of coconut trees and managed to sail back to drydock in Australia. Now that's "survivability"!!

[teds :D]

sup ship bros

[Me]

Continuing the proud tradition of Royal Australian Navy vessels sinking US Navy ones a Collins class sub HMAS Farncomb sank USNS Kilauea in a planned exercise.



Heaps of pictures here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-practice.html


And here's a video of another Collins class, HMAS Waller, sinking the destroyer USS Fletcher in 2008.




From Wiki

In late May 2000, Waller became the first Australian submarine to operate as a fully integrated component of a United States Navy carrier battle group during wargames.[16] Waller’s role was to search for and engage opposing submarines hunting the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, a role in which she performed better than expected.[16] A few days later, as part of the RIMPAC 2000 exercise, Waller was assigned to act as an 'enemy' submarine, and was reported to have successfully engaged two USN nuclear submarines before coming into attacking range of Abraham Lincoln.[17] Waller performed similarly during the Operation Tandem Thrust wargames in 2001, when she 'sank' two USN amphibious assault ships in waters just over 70 metres (230 ft) deep; although the submarine was 'destroyed' herself later in the exercise.[17]

During a multinational exercise in September 2003, which was attended by Waller and sister boat Rankin, Waller successfully "sank" a Los Angeles class nuclear submarine, prompting claims from the USN that diesel submarines like the Collins class are one of the major threats facing modern navies.[18]

Diesel subs > nuclear.

[Joe Appleby]

Diesel subs > nuclear.

The German subs always performed well in exercises as well. The Russian Kilos have quite a reputation. However ais is becoming the standard for new submarines. Germany has the 212 class, the Russians a Kilo upgrade / successor.

Sent from my phone by tapatalk.

[Crystalline Entity]

Continuing the proud tradition of Royal Australian Navy vessels sinking US Navy ones a Collins class sub HMAS Farncomb sank USNS Kilauea in a planned exercise.



Heaps of pictures here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-practice.html

A collins class sinking something?.?.?......... let alone being at sea!!!!!!

This calls for more shrimps and barbies!

[Bartholomeus Crane]

sup ship bros

Rather overrated if you ask me. Did you know he couldn't stand the sea? He was constantly seasick!

Now, here's a true adventurer, admiral, and privateer!

[Me]

Russia didn't want that fleet anyway~

e: since its a fairly unknown war, this is the battle I'm referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

[Tajidan]

i see your fatso and raise with this fine gentleman

[Crystalline Entity]

Didnt want his fleet either

[indeterminacy]

The Navy liked them both so much that it just split the contract.

The Navy doesn't split contracts because it likes a ship class. It does it because of politics. And so it has always been...the first 6 ships built for the USN were built in, you guessed it, six different cities.

Content, USS The Sullivans:


USS Juneau (on which the five sullivan brothers died):

[Spoony]

HMS Campbeltown



take one obsolete destroyer, fill it with explosives and escort with a load of small boats full of angry commandos, sail several miles up a river full of fortified German positions, and ram the dry dock gate of the naval base.

Come midday the next day when the captain was being interrogated by a German officer over how foolish it was to ram such a stout gate with such a flimsy ship, the explosives detonated, rendering the dry dock unusable for the rest of the war.

quite a good documentary on the raid (narrated by Jeremy Clarkson, but don't hold that against it)

[Shiodome]

  Spoiler:

sup ship bros

Rather overrated if you ask me. Did you know he couldn't stand the sea? He was constantly seasick!

Now, here's a true adventurer, admiral, and privateer!

wtf is with his chin? also best new thread in ages.

[Klesk]

HMS Campbeltown



take one obsolete destroyer, fill it with explosives and escort with a load of small boats full of angry commandos, sail several miles up a river full of fortified German positions, and ram the dry dock gate of the naval base.

Come midday the next day when the captain was being interrogated by a German officer over how foolish it was to ram such a stout gate with such a flimsy ship, the explosives detonated, rendering the dry dock unusable for the rest of the war.

quite a good documentary on the raid (narrated by Jeremy Clarkson, but don't hold that against it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid

For the lazy.

[Warpath]

Supposed to be a goatee?

[Klesk]

Incredible image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Franklin_%28CV-13%29

[sarabando]

i see your fatso and raise with this fine gentleman

il see your potatoe finding tool and raise you


(who im also related to on my grandmothers side

[sarabando]

edit double toast

[Tajidan]

edit double toast

good job on finding india!

[Liare]

Apples and banana's again.

Take two very similar sail-plans on two very similar ships, and the move from one to the other or vise versa isn't very difficult. No shit Sherlock. But we weren't talking about two very similar sail-plans on two very similar ships now were we? The difference isn't about the number of foresails, it is about completely redoing a mast, one integral to the whole ship design. That means moving, removing, or extending the mast, the rigging to keep it in place, putting a very different sail-plan on top, and then still making with work within the hull. It is not the same as changing the oars on a row-boat! Unless you have very similar ship designs, like a sloop, cutter, or ketch, you cannot easily re-rig a ship 'as required'. And we weren't talking about sloops, cutters, ketches or rowboats. We were talking about sizeable ships that differ in hull design significantly. You know, yachts, Carracks, Galleons, Fluyts ...

purely on hull design yes you can, a ship could relatively easily get re-rigged as required.

this is what i posted.

First, you can't easily re-rig a ship 'as required'. One of the major influences on a rigging is the size and placement of the masts. It is very difficult to just 'move' a mast (not impossible, just very expensive) around in a boat design. You can't move from a gaff to a square to a lateen rig just like that. You'd basically have to rebuild half the ship. And hulls were designed for a certain rigging, just as much as the specific sail-plan was designed to work best with a hull design. And then there's all the stuff that goes with the rigging, Capstans and the like. It all had to be very delicately balanced. Otherwise the ship would rip itself apart on strong winds, or flop about in the water and hardly get anywhere.

this is what you posted, let's keep that in mind.

could you ever so kindly point out where in my post i talked about ships of a specific class or size ? i cant seem to find it, but then my eyesight must be bad, or perhaps now would be a good place to post a link explaining what exactly rigging is ?

most age of sail vessels where the smaller stuff like Sloops, Cutters and Ketches. i realise it's not as glorious as the big ships of the line and so forth, but it is just as interesting, if not more so.

I bring them up because that is what the Spanish and the Portuguese were sailing at the time of the Duyfken! And long after as well. And not just in the Mediterranean either. Their Galleons were their small faster ships (still outclassed but there you go).

but you yourself pointed out that the Duyfken pre-date the "invention" of the fluyt by quite a few years, truth to be told i dont know much about that ship and neither did i ever claim to do so.

not that you can specifically date the Fluyts anyway, given it was a gradual process that resulted in the development of the class.

Compare it to an "Oostindievaarder"? Man, what are you talking about? The Indiaman is the East-Indies version of the Fluyt! It ditched the Baltic deck for a wider poop and weather deck, and early Indiamen were practically indistinguishable from Fluyts. Fluyts, furthermore, pre-date Indiaman, as the Baltic Merchant fleet for the Dutch existed well before they went to the Indies. You know, there's a reason why they're officially called 'East Indiamen': the East-Indies are what now is Indonesia, a former Dutch colony! The Dutch designed the early Indiamen off the Fluyt, or their common ancestor, the yacht.

It is useless to compare something to itself: you won't find much difference. But it is perfectly reasonable to compare Fluyts or Oostindievaarders to Carracks, because that was what the Spanish, in the early years the biggest merchant navy in the world, were using for cargoships. And there's a massive difference between the two designs. In hull design. Sailplan. Usage. Basically everything.

acutrally the first Indiamen where laid off war-ships rebuild for mechant purposes, even the name is misleading as the "class" encompass pretty much any large merchant vessel driven by sail up until the mid 1800's where clippers appeared.

your comparison was more or less the same as going "the new Boeing 777 is miles better than the DC-10!" nobody is going to reasonably dispute that, but it's fucking irrelevant anyway because neither of those where ever intended to compete with the other, you want to praise the Fluyts, do so by comparing it with a contemporary design.

So now the Mary Rose and the Duyfken are also the same design?

*snip pointless rant that entirely missed the point i was making*

no, and could you ever so kindly provide a quote where i say it's the same design ?

i refer STRICTLY to the lines of the vessel, the high forecastle, the raised poop deck on the rear, the subtly "curved" lines of the hull itself. everything features that can be traced backwards to the Cog and Holk type vessels and all of them things that define european ship building down trough the age of sail.

Xebecs being a contempoary type are pretty much flat, and wide, the japanese and chinese building those ridiculous fortresses on boat hulls and so forth.

[Bartholomeus Crane]

il see your potatoe finding tool and raise you


(who im also related to on my grandmothers side

I see your 'man-in-tights', and raise you:


Who humiliated the English (on several occasions), and destroyed Spanish naval supremacy forever by capturing, sinking, or burning their invasion Armada.

At one point he had beaten the English so badly he flew a broom from the top, for having 'swept the English from the sea'.