Nimitz carrier doing a hard turn

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-02-04 06:20am

Shinova wrote:You know, it looks awfully smaller than it actually is from that angle. Is a part of it bent away from view or something, since the carrier's made up of interlocking hull sections?

No, its the coupe version.

Boba Fett · Post by **Boba Fett** » 2003-02-04 06:43am

weemadando wrote:
Shinova wrote:You know, it looks awfully smaller than it actually is from that angle. Is a part of it bent away from view or something, since the carrier's made up of interlocking hull sections?
No, its the coupe version.

ROFLMAO

Malecoda · Post by **Malecoda** » 2003-02-04 12:09pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
With the Iowa class it makes sense. They ran their trials in very shallow water, which makes ships, move slower. In deep water they should go noticeably faster. They where known to reach 35 knots in service, 34 in ths 1980's IIRC. I've near heard 36, but mabey with a light fuel load they might reach it.

I missed this yesterday--but the Gulf of Mexico was where we ran our trials, you can judge the depth yourself but when you can't see the shore, it's not shallow at all. Sorray!

Besides, I am not sure what the depth of the water has to do with it. 38 feet is the same depth everywhere. Expound and feel free to correct, eh?

Malecoda · Post by **Malecoda** » 2003-02-04 12:37pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Malecoda wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
With the Iowa class it makes sense. They ran their trials in very shallow water, which makes ships, move slower. In deep water they should go noticeably faster. They where known to reach 35 knots in service, 34 in ths 1980's IIRC. I've near heard 36, but mabey with a light fuel load they might reach it.
I was just waiting for someone to go "Red herring, that's a BB! Concession accepted!" But 212,000/55,000 is bigger than 280,000/100,000, so it's a good comparison.

To counter the "we don't have a clue what they look like underwater" poster, of course we do. It's published--the Navy makes math books too, btw; but also, it would be very similar to a BB, or if you prefer something more concrete, I'm sure there's a pic of a carrier in drydock somewhere... If all else fails, get a scale model.
Actually, Slade address the accuracy of models, http://pub82.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliti ... c&index=12

And the USN tightly controls the filming of its ships in dry dock.

But, while a model may not have sterling accuracy, it is a rough approximation, which was all I needed to say "you are wrong to say we have no clue what it looks like". Also, I am not sure abt the drydock security statement. Get off the ship, whip out the camera, snap, go about your business. If anyone does notice, they pbly wouldn't say anything. And control can mean different things--a quick google shows me no pics of a carrier in drydock, meaning a) I don't have the time nor motivation to go on with it, and b) they may tightly control the publication of such a photo. I do not think, however, that tthis means shipsec* is gg to give a shit. I've taken pics of NWIS in drydock, and though it's not a CVN, it's gg to have comparable resources allocated to it-and really, it's not all that important, because you CAN take pictures, which is how they get the approximation for a scale model anyway.

I hear they've done away with Mardet on carriers, to which I exclaimed "WTF?" "Oh, it's much more peaceful now" (spoken by a Nimitz AB I talked to) "You're on a CARRIER!"

But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, so be it--I was never a good squiddie anyway. For those unaware, if you're still here, I was on the Wisconsin (International Call Letters NWIS) for 2 years and was kicked out for fighting in Abu Dhabi, so it's been a gazillion years and you're talking to a guy who was busted down to E-3 after 2 and a half years. I told Stuart Mackie once "My credibility is like that of Scotty's in TNG" I'm old and I just know how it was at the n00b level, not how it is at, say, the OSC level.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-04 05:40pm

Malecoda wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
With the Iowa class it makes sense. They ran their trials in very shallow water, which makes ships, move slower. In deep water they should go noticeably faster. They where known to reach 35 knots in service, 34 in ths 1980's IIRC. I've near heard 36, but mabey with a light fuel load they might reach it.
I missed this yesterday--but the Gulf of Mexico was where we ran our trials, you can judge the depth yourself but when you can't see the shore, it's not shallow at all. Sorray! Besides, I am not sure what the depth of the water has to do with it. 38 feet is the same depth everywhere. Expound and feel free to correct, eh?

When Wisconsin was completed the German sub thread off the US coast was theoretical at worst, deeper water may have been chosen. But Iowa was running trials in early 1943, Battle of the Atlantic was alive and well then.

The reason is slows ships down is there much pressure on the ship moving through the water because it can't move down under as easily. For similar reasons most nuclear submarines are faster dived then surfaced, though another part of that is how close the screw is too the waters surface.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-04 05:43pm

You people have never seen that before? Damn. Discovery channel had a whole thing on ACCs and the sea trials.

i wonder how they prevent the planes from sliding..

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2003-02-04 05:50pm

kojikun wrote:You people have never seen that before? Damn. Discovery channel had a whole thing on ACCs and the sea trials.

i wonder how they prevent the planes from sliding..

There weren't any at the time.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-02-04 05:51pm

kojikun wrote:You people have never seen that before? Damn. Discovery channel had a whole thing on ACCs and the sea trials.

i wonder how they prevent the planes from sliding..

Planes can be anchored to the decks by cables, and during sea trials they aren't aboard. The air wings only come to the carrier after it's been formaly comissioned (that is, after passing acceptance trials).

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-02-04 05:51pm

Skimmer, what is Stuart Slade's credentials?

I mean it's all fine and dandy for him to go write articles, but whether he's US, etc...

EDIT, meant to say USN, not US

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-02-04 05:53pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: When Wisconsin was completed the German sub thread off the US coast was theoretical at worst, deeper water may have been chosen. But Iowa was running trials in early 1943, Battle of the Atlantic was alive and well then.

The reason is slows ships down is there much pressure on the ship moving through the water because it can't move down under as easily. For similar reasons most nuclear submarines are faster dived then surfaced, though another part of that is how close the screw is too the waters surface.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they mainly designed for fast carrier escort?

*EDIT*
That could account for their high speed requirement, since the fleet carriers were also able of high speed.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-02-04 05:56pm

Ted wrote:Skimmer, what is Stuart Slade's credentials?

I mean it's all fine and dandy for him to go write articles, but whether he's US, etc...

He's a 46-year-old Senior Naval Analyst for Forecast International. BSc in Chemical Engineering and Marine Engineering, worked as an analyst on chemical and oil tankers, analyst on defense and naval electronics. Worked as defense market analyst for Jane's. Emigrated to the US in 1990, specializes in interplay between developments in ships, sensors, and weapons.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-02-04 05:59pm

The Dark wrote:
Ted wrote:Skimmer, what is Stuart Slade's credentials?

I mean it's all fine and dandy for him to go write articles, but whether he's US, etc...
He's a 46-year-old Senior Naval Analyst for Forecast International. BSc in Chemical Engineering and Marine Engineering, worked as an analyst on chemical and oil tankers, analyst on defense and naval electronics. Worked as defense market analyst for Jane's. Emigrated to the US in 1990, specializes in interplay between developments in ships, sensors, and weapons.

How long you been on that board then?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-04 06:02pm

Ted wrote:
The Dark wrote:
Ted wrote:Skimmer, what is Stuart Slade's credentials?

I mean it's all fine and dandy for him to go write articles, but whether he's US, etc...
He's a 46-year-old Senior Naval Analyst for Forecast International. BSc in Chemical Engineering and Marine Engineering, worked as an analyst on chemical and oil tankers, analyst on defense and naval electronics. Worked as defense market analyst for Jane's. Emigrated to the US in 1990, specializes in interplay between developments in ships, sensors, and weapons.
How long you been on that board then?

About four years that I know of, Usenet is full of his stuff as well and he was active on the warship1 boards for a while.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-04 06:05pm

i meant if they have to do that maneuver for real. you sure chains would hold? theyd need to be damn big..

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-04 06:10pm

kojikun wrote:i meant if they have to do that maneuver for real. you sure chains would hold? theyd need to be damn big..

CVN's have steamed through Hurricanes before, though they try to avoide them. They've got anchor points built into the deck and I'd expect they designed the chains to hold during such maneuvers.

Task force 58 once got cought in a major hurriance in 1944. Over 350 planes where lost off the decks of the carriers and three destroyers which where low on fuel where also lost. I'd expect that event and others thought the navy somthing about securing aircraft and equipment.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-02-04 06:12pm

kojikun wrote:i meant if they have to do that maneuver for real. you sure chains would hold? theyd need to be damn big..

Hell, no, they would spend the rest of the day fishing for alluminium!

The ship is in a light condition, hence the roll is much more pronunciated. With stores, fuel, ammunition, aircraft and 5000 monkeys, it doesn't roll so much...
Besides, if ever a carrier needs to perform that kind of maneuver, then the battle he's in is seriously going into the crapper, I mean, either the ship's captain and admiral are assholes, or the sub/aircraft commander that launched the torpedo/missile is a lucky bastard. That's a VERY last ditch maneuver, and no sane captain would allow himself fall into a situation like that.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-02-04 06:12pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:About four years that I know of, Usenet is full of his stuff as well and he was active on the warship1 boards for a while.

And to think, if I had never stumbled on warships1 3 years ago, I would never have known about ASVS and SDnet.