StarDestroyer.Net BBS

MKSheppard wrote: Uhm, the Roosevelt CVN today refers to Theodore Roosevelt; not FDR. The FDR was a Midway which retired long ago.

I know. That's the CV I meant, and I know it was a conventionally powered CV - designated a CVB when built, later a CVA. Frank has had his carrier, it's Senator E.M. Kennedy or President Clinton's turn next. Live or recently dead pols have more friends than long dead ones.

Seems about time for the USN to consider a new class of CVEs; new built in the style of the Sea Base Ship proposals, or converted from existing container ships, or both at once.

question:

Granted what I know carrier aviation comes out of the talking picture box, but don't carriers have to be sailing into the wind to launch aircraft?

If thats the case, wouldn't the decreased airflow and subsequent loss of speed as a result of hell intake filters on aircraft hamper the launch of aircraft?

Also decreased visibility is going to play merry hell with landings.

Scottish Ninja wrote:It just occurred to me to ask - what date has Armageddon gotten up to so far?

Late April I think.

Zed Snardbody wrote:If thats the case, wouldn't the decreased airflow and subsequent loss of speed as a result of hell intake filters on aircraft hamper the launch of aircraft?

I imagine that if necessary, you could attach rocket assist units to light off for a few seconds as the a/c comes off the end of the catapult. Expensive but acceptable when essentially the world's entire industrial production is being retargetted to support the human expiditionary force. Failing that, you'd just have to reduce takeoff weight; maybe if tankers are available you could launch with minimum fuel and refuel over the carrier.

Zed Snardbody wrote:question:

Granted what I know carrier aviation comes out of the talking picture box, but don't carriers have to be sailing into the wind to launch aircraft?

Significant wind over the deck used to be essentially, even with early hydraulic catapults, but the modern steam catapults on USN super carriers are powerful enough to launch planes even when the ship is stationary. Turning into the wind is still preferable but not absolutely required. Lack of engine thrust could cause problems just after takeoff in hell, but the solution would be straightforward enough, give each plane a couple JATO packs for use just as the wheels leave the deck for a little extra push away from stall speed. Avoiding takeoffs with maximum load could also help out, it’s rare that a plane would be fully loaded anyway.

As for visibility, I don’t get the impression that its truly so bad as to be a serious impediment, visibility at sea is often not that great to start with, and dust should be less prevalent over the water. Carriers also do have automatic control systems for guiding down aircraft for use in zero visibility conditions. Its risky, but a normal carrier landing isn’t the safest idea humanity ever dreamed up anyway.

I'm surprised they wouldn't at least take a crack at Ranger. She's in the best exterior material condition of the mothballed carriers here at Bremerton, at least, and is seriously considered for a berth in Portland as a museum ship, for whatever reason the carriers decommed later are generally in worse material condition. Of course I'm not sure how much that says about her innards. I assume Kitty Hawk is at least being retained in service indefinitely.

MKSheppard wrote:

Stuart wrote:That was rather the point - I was having a jab at the current convention of naming carriers after Presidents. I was thinking of the Millard Fillmore and Calvin Coolidge but that would be over-egging the pudding.

No Franklin D Roosevelt?

I believe that the Burke DDG USS Roosevelt covers both Franklin and Elanor.

What stupid names! They could have gone with John Adams! Thomas Jefferson! James Madison! David Rice Atchison!

Thomas Jefferson

I think that Jefferson has never been used because he was not great to the navy. I seem to remember one past president has certainly been excluded for reasons like that.
At least the RN does not name its capital ships after politicians, thank heavens (no pun intended).

JN1 wrote:

Thomas Jefferson

I think that Jefferson has never been used because he was not great to the navy. I seem to remember one past president has certainly been excluded for reasons like that.
At least the RN does not name its capital ships after politicians, thank heavens (no pun intended).

Indeed, the British have always had much better sense when it comes to naming warships (just forget about the stereotype perpetuating HMS Pansy).

Patrick Robinson wrote a novel in which the CVN Thomas Jefferson was destroyed in the Arabian Sea by a Kilo-class, rented by Iraq, driven by an Israeli, all the while trying to pin the blame on Iran.

Just a minor note: the portal should be a minimum of 300 feet wide, bigger if possible. A Nimitz is almost 260 feet wide across the flight deck, so 200 feet won't cut it (or actually, it will, I assume when you try to shove it through a too small hole).

The USN has to answer to our political masters and that is why our tried and true naming systems died. USS Carl Vinson??!!!

Shermpotter wrote:snip

The USN has to answer to our political masters and that is why our tried and true naming systems died. USS Carl Vinson??!!!

Oh? I just assumed it was arse kissing as the Brits have not succumbed to such depths of depravity.

Well, isn't that the same thing???? They have to answer and kiss at the same time, to get the funding, etc. If it were within my abilities all that shit would disappear and ships would revert to the WW2 system.

How deep in the water is the portal going, BTW. Make it a nice round 500 feet and be done with it!!!

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Shermpotter wrote:snip

The USN has to answer to our political masters and that is why our tried and true naming systems died. USS Carl Vinson??!!!

Oh? I just assumed it was arse kissing as the Brits have not succumbed to such depths of depravity.

And we don't?
We have named at least two warships after ex-PMs though, HMS Churchill and HMS Iron Duke.

Well, isn't that the same thing???? They have to answer and kiss at the same time, to get the funding, etc.

We should probably have named one of the CVFs HMS Treasury then.

JN1 wrote:
And we don't?
We have named at least two warships after ex-PMs though, HMS Churchill and HMS Iron Duke.

We have a Destroyer named after an ex-PM too.

Shermpotter wrote:Well, isn't that the same thing???? They have to answer and kiss at the same time, to get the funding, etc. If it were within my abilities all that shit would disappear and ships would revert to the WW2 system.

The system went off the rails arguably with the Forrestal and again with the JFK, though one could argue that those were exceptional cases like the FDR and BB-5 USS Kearsarge. The next one was the Nimitz. That name should have gone to an escort, like a DLG or an SSBN. Unquestionably, they blew it with the Vinson and subsequent ships.

Carriers aside, I rather thought the convention used from the 1970's to the 1990's was pretty good. Cruisers for historic ships, like the old carriers had been, SSBN for states, like battleships, SSN for cities, like cruisers. They now seem to have changed yet again for no very good reason.

Lonestar wrote:

JN1 wrote:
And we don't?
We have named at least two warships after ex-PMs though, HMS Churchill and HMS Iron Duke.

We have a Destroyer named after an ex-PM too.

Yes, the USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG81); her navigator is an RN officer.

Since the CVN's and the Kirovs are going to join the fight, I would dearly like to see the Iowa-class BBs join the festivities. I'm drooling over the reaction that baldricks might have when they try to fight such massive vessels, to say nothing of reacting to massed 16" shellfire

Mike Garrity

Unfortunately, the best I can tell is that you're going to be able to cobble together a force of 4 Ticonderoga-class CGs of the first flight (non-VLS), 4 Spruance-class destroyers, and 5 or 6 OHPs, as well as, most interestingly, 5 Belknap class CGs which are stored at Suisun. They were given NTU and then almost immediately decommissioned, and might be quite viable additions to the fleet again. To help support the expeditionary force, we can definitely reactivate most of the Sacramento-class AORs.

I was thinking we might see Ranger on top of that, and if you really wanted to we could probably cannibalize three of the Iowa's to restore one to service, but apparently Ranger isn't in as good condition as I thought (I know America and Independence are total write-offs, as is JFK), and I don't see much point in reactivating a single Iowa--nor does Stuart. The Belknap class CGs, on the other hand, I don't see why not, and Stuart had already stated to me (I was going to write a piece but ended up not doing it--I still could do a modified version, though, if he wanted me to, set later on) that the reserved non-VLS Tico's, Spru-can's, and OHPs would all be back, and as best as I can tell, those 13 - 14 ships are all we have in those categories.

But then I noticed that the Belknap's are sitting around at Suisun, and it occurred to me that we could have a go at reactivating them as well. Everything was just installed when they were mothballed and it's a damn shame if we waste it, why not send them to Hell where they'll if nothing else be more expendable, or if the threat level is high enough to demand AEGIS, they can take over patrol duties on Earth. They'll be solid anti-aircraft artillery platforms, if nothing else. I wonder how many 40mm bofors we can pile on the ships before they head in to deal with harpies? Same thing with the AORs--everything that goes through should have its decks festooned with 3in/50's and 40mm's.

Michael Garrity wrote:Since the CVN's and the Kirovs are going to join the fight, I would dearly like to see the Iowa-class BBs join the festivities. I'm drooling over the reaction that baldricks might have when they try to fight such massive vessels, to say nothing of reacting to massed 16" shellfire

The set of potential targets that can be effectively engaged by battleships is rather smaller than that which can be engaged by carrier aircraft. Post-refit, they don't even have the thicket of AA guns that would've been useful against harpies. As such investing significant effort in refurbishing or even manning BBs would be premature. If there are no worthwhile targets in shore bombardment range and the aquatic demons live in deep water, then BBs wouldn't be much use.

I do expect to see SSNs getting some serious action, really the first time in history they're going to be in a target rich environment with full freedom to engage.

Of course, another thing we can do is put harpoons on the Hamilton class Coast Guard cutters, replace their rescue helicopter with an ASW helicopter, and festoon the decks with AAA. They'll serve to fill out the escorts, since it seems that we're only going to be able to, at most, reactivate 18 cruisers, destroyers, and frigates from the mothball yards, which isn't very many.

Michael Garrity wrote:Since the CVN's and the Kirovs are going to join the fight, I would dearly like to see the Iowa-class BBs join the festivities. I'm drooling over the reaction that baldricks might have when they try to fight such massive vessels, to say nothing of reacting to massed 16" shellfire

Mike Garrity

There are a few logistics and training issues to reactivating the Iowas, and those would be made worse during wartime given all the competing priorities. It would likely still be a year or so to get one back into service and two or three total to get all four (assuming a high wartime priority, it would be about twice that in peacetime - i.e. in real life). What would be also be an issue would be finding targets for which sixteen inch gunfire is needed that can't be handled by aircraft or other artillery. An argument today for reactivation is that modern AAW could make it better to attack by gun than by aircraft. This isn't the case in Hell as they don't have any modern AAW systems. Adding a suitable anti-harpy AAW suite to a battleship shouldn't be very hard, though.

I'd rather see them build arsenal ships with 155 mm guns and POLAR (a navalized MLRS). It would take about as long not much more expensive to build and be as BB reactivation, would be as effectively armoured against bronze age weapons as a battleship, would need fewer crew, and would be much cheaper to run.

Then again, it would be exceeding cool and that might be enough for Stuart to find a good reason to do it anyway. Heck, some think that's really why they brought them back in the eighties!

Starglider:

I see your point. When the Iowas were refitted, they lost all of their 20-mm Oerlikons, 40-mm Bofors as well as two of their 5"/38 mounts (this reduced their secondary battery from 20 5" guns to 12).
How about using a museum ship like USS Massachusetts? She is currently berthed in Fall River, and all of her secondary guns are still there. Yes, it would take a good deal to get her back into fighting shape, but certainly much less than restoring an Iowa.
I brought up using the battlewagons in the ongoing campaign, because I used to live In Rhode Island, and on several occasions I visited USS Massachusetts and the other ships at the memorial. While walking Big Mamie's decks, you really get a sense of how truly monstrous these ships are.

Mike Garrity

Michael Garrity wrote:Starglider:

I see your point. When the Iowas were refitted, they lost all of their 20-mm Oerlikons, 40-mm Bofors as well as two of their 5"/38 mounts (this reduced their secondary battery from 20 5" guns to 12).
How about using a museum ship like USS Massachusetts? She is currently berthed in Fall River, and all of her secondary guns are still there. Yes, it would take a good deal to get her back into fighting shape, but certainly much less than restoring an Iowa.
I brought up using the battlewagons in the ongoing campaign, because I used to live In Rhode Island, and on several occasions I visited USS Massachusetts and the other ships at the memorial. While walking Big Mamie's decks, you really get a sense of how truly monstrous these ships are.

Mike Garrity

Mamie is in rough shape. All of her guns from breeches to barrels are filled with concrete. All but one of her engine rooms were scrapped for parts. She has lots of cleaned up spaces which serve well as a museum ship. I think as far as the North Carolina's go, you're best going with the class' namesake. Still, you are dealing with a hull and superstructure over 70 years old.