Nimitz carrier doing a hard turn

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-31 09:23pm

RAMMING SPEED!

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-01-31 09:29pm

HemlockGrey wrote:RAMMING SPEED!

You know, there was a thread over at Spacebattles about a US carrier vs. The Queen Elizabeth (a luxury liner), no weapons, only ramming. This was one of the replies:

Originally posted by Random Chaos
If the American Carrier (the male muscel of the US) rammed the stern of the Queen Elizabeth ship (named after a female), would that be considered rape and sexual battery?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-01-31 09:33pm

it probably looks shorter because in this angle the part where the deck is wider but shorter covers the part where it´s longer but narrower.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-31 09:35pm

There was good old HMAS Melbourne, which rammed and sank two escorting destroyers on separate occasions.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-01-31 09:39pm

ESCORTING destroyers? Please don't tell me that was a joke...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-31 09:52pm

Crayz9000 wrote:ESCORTING destroyers? Please don't tell me that was a joke...

Nope, HMAS Voyager and USS Frank E Evans where sent to the bottom by her bow. While being towed to China she also nearly sank the tug towing her after the cable snapped.

Ramming accidents happen a fair bit in navies, its just rare that anything is sunk by it. The Belknap fire for example was caused by a collision with the carrier JFK. While her hull was not hit, the cruiser superstructure tore into fuel pipes in the carrier's overhanging flight deck. This basically drenched the cruiser in burning jet fuel.

She returned to service after four years of repaire work.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-31 09:55pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:There was good old HMAS Melbourne, which rammed and sank two escorting destroyers on separate occasions.

Funky ship.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-01-31 10:19pm

It looks like the carrier is hydroplaning and skidding to the right. Thats one amazing pic.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-31 10:24pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:It looks like the carrier is hydroplaning and skidding to the right. Thats one amazing pic.

Heeeey, hydroplane equipped carriers!!!

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-02-01 05:40am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:It looks like the carrier is hydroplaning and skidding to the right. Thats one amazing pic.

The Nimitz class is relatively flat-bottomed and since they are likely doing this during testing the ship should be rather light. No planes, no aircraft fuel, limited stores etc...and a carrier will roll pretty well.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-02-01 05:54am

That's increadible. It's hard to believe such a large vessel can make a turn so sharply.

How long are Nimitz class carriers, anyway?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-02-01 06:02am

My pocket illustrated guide to modern warships says; 1,091.9ft (332.8m) in length

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-01 06:03am

1040 feet at the water line, the flight deck is 1089. The improved Nimitz's, Theodore Roosevelt on, are 1092 feet overall but the same waterline.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2003-02-01 05:20pm

Shinova wrote:

Found this on spacebattles and thought I'd share it with everyone here.

I do believe they are trying to get it to fishtail...

Long Wang · Post by **Long Wang** » 2003-02-01 07:30pm

I pity the poor sod who lost a bet and was on the flight deck wearing roller skates while that maneuver was being executed.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-02-01 09:12pm

Although top speed's classified, I've heard that Enterprise could do 45kts, I wouldn't be suprised if Nimitz is doing 35-40 in that photo. I've got a book with a photo of a WWI British "R"class battleship doing a "helm hard over" manouver like that. But at one third the displacement, roughly 5/8 the length, and half the speed, it just doesn't compare.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-01 09:22pm

Yeah, the run all carriers through these trials.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-01 09:36pm

Frank Hipper wrote:Although top speed's classified, I've heard that Enterprise could do 45kts, I wouldn't be suprised if Nimitz is doing 35-40 in that photo. I've got a book with a photo of a WWI British "R"class battleship doing a "helm hard over" manouver like that. But at one third the displacement, roughly 5/8 the length, and half the speed, it just doesn't compare.

No. Top speed of the US carriers top out around 30-33 kts depending one which on you're talking about.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-02-01 09:53pm

phongn wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:Although top speed's classified, I've heard that Enterprise could do 45kts, I wouldn't be suprised if Nimitz is doing 35-40 in that photo. I've got a book with a photo of a WWI British "R"class battleship doing a "helm hard over" manouver like that. But at one third the displacement, roughly 5/8 the length, and half the speed, it just doesn't compare.
No. Top speed of the US carriers top out around 30-33 kts depending one which on you're talking about.

Officially. And that could well be true of the Nimitz class.
I based this on an interview with I saw where the guy was claiming that Enterprise was capable of more than 45 knots, and did so on more than one occasion. He served on her in the early days of her career, which could have some bearing on pushing for optimal performance.
Remember, the Iowa's true top speed wasn't given until after Vietnam.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-02-01 10:02pm

Pure hull form will limit the carriers top speed.

There is no way the ship can do 45kts.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-01 10:07pm

I find it interesting how many people not in the military say nothing more then 35 knots. Yet I have heard from multiple saliors now that the Nimitz class can hit the mid 40s.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-02-01 10:17pm

I've heard 40+ knots from a friend who served on an escort to one, and another said it was "significantly higher than stated," but classified.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-02-01 10:27pm

Shinova wrote:
Originally posted by Random Chaos
If the American Carrier (the male muscel of the US) rammed the stern of the Queen Elizabeth ship (named after a female), would that be considered rape and sexual battery?

Actually, Queen Mary, her smaller cousin, rammed and sank and escorting cruiser.

The troops on board repudtedly didn't hear or feel anything worse than a bump and a slight groan.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-01 10:34pm

Alyeska wrote:I find it interesting how many people not in the military say nothing more then 35 knots. Yet I have heard from multiple saliors now that the Nimitz class can hit the mid 40s.

I find it highly unlikely, still - they may be overexaggerating.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-02-01 10:36pm

jaeger115 wrote:Whoa... I didn't know a supercarrier could do that....

Fully loaded, they can't. They have that pic on the wall in Rickover Center, and it is clearly labled "Seatrials", meaning this was before it was loaded up and put into actual use

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Nimitz carrier doing a hard turn

Re: Nimitz carrier doing a hard turn