StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Mostly against European fishermen depleting our salmon stocks

The Cod war showed the superiority of dedicated ocean patrol vessels over frigates and destroyers for fishery protection. In a ramming actions Iceland's OPV’s suffered dents and scratched paint while British warships had holes knocked in there sides.

Argentina had a better solution to Russian poaching in the late 1970’s though. Send out a lighter cruiser and open fire. Soviets got rather pissed after the General Belgrano damaged several trawlers and seized a number more.

But the poaching stopped.

The Russians went all the way to Argentina to poach?

They shoulda sent a Kirov down there and given em what for ... (when it was commisioned a decade later, of course)

Vympel wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Mostly against European fishermen depleting our salmon stocks

The Cod war showed the superiority of dedicated ocean patrol vessels over frigates and destroyers for fishery protection. In a ramming actions Iceland's OPV’s suffered dents and scratched paint while British warships had holes knocked in there sides.

Argentina had a better solution to Russian poaching in the late 1970’s though. Send out a lighter cruiser and open fire. Soviets got rather pissed after the General Belgrano damaged several trawlers and seized a number more.

But the poaching stopped.

The Russians went all the way to Argentina to poach?

They shoulda sent a Kirov down there and given em what for ... (when it was commisioned a decade later, of course)

Russia sent trawlers all over. In general they ignored EEZ’s, despite themselves claiming vast areas of sea and basically being the reason why the 3-mile limit once claimed by all nations was moved out to five times that.

Till Kirov and the Iowas showed up in the 80's, General Belgrano was basically the worlds most powerful surface combattant. Its a pretty much sure thing when you consider that never in history has an SSM or anti ship ASM been fired over the horizion at a target.

If it where not for the Falklands war, by the time Kirov could have shown up Argentian may have been able to beat the Kirov. Though it would never be an issue as a USN carrier group would be dispatched to protect a close US ally.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Argentina had a better solution to Russian poaching in the late 1970’s though. Send out a lighter cruiser and open fire. Soviets got rather pissed after the General Belgrano damaged several trawlers and seized a number more.

Ah, the Belgrano.

Sunk by WWII torpedoes, fired from the only successful SSN.

Ted wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Argentina had a better solution to Russian poaching in the late 1970’s though. Send out a lighter cruiser and open fire. Soviets got rather pissed after the General Belgrano damaged several trawlers and seized a number more.

Ah, the Belgrano.

Sunk by WWII torpedoes, fired from the only successful SSN.

Mk.VIII torpedoes from WWII launched from the HMS Conquerer I believe. The only nuke sub to fire in anger on another naval vessel, IIRC.

phongn wrote:I'm not sure if Canada wants or needs either of them. They're getting worn out and the increased optempo isn't doing them any good.

That was just part of a mini-debate with Ted about Canada aquiring a CV of her own. Some plan from the Regean years that he brought up about Canada buying the Kitty Hawk if it was surplused out in favor of CVNs.

The Canadians don't need or want, as far as I know, carriers. Even if they did the Kitty Hawks and the JFK are too old and too creaky anyways. Much more likely would be the Brit's current carriers after they get replaced.

phongn wrote:CVN-78 (CVN(X) 1) will replace her in 2013.

I've seen 2018 in several places. I think there's a fair amount of fuzziness going on with the CNVX program anyways.

I recently discovered we had four carriers in the 1950s but the stupid government sold them

Montcalm wrote:I recently discovered we had four carriers in the 1950s but the stupid government sold them

most likely WWII leftovers......werent's Canada's WWII flatops old and British to begin with?

Stormbringer wrote:

phongn wrote:I'm not sure if Canada wants or needs either of them. They're getting worn out and the increased optempo isn't doing them any good.

That was just part of a mini-debate with Ted about Canada aquiring a CV of her own. Some plan from the Regean years that he brought up about Canada buying the Kitty Hawk if it was surplused out in favor of CVNs.

The Canadians don't need or want, as far as I know, carriers. Even if they did the Kitty Hawks and the JFK are too old and too creaky anyways. Much more likely would be the Brit's current carriers after they get replaced.

JFK is still in not-so-good condition, I hear, even with all the repairs they made.

phongn wrote:CVN-78 (CVN(X) 1) will replace her in 2013.

I've seen 2018 in several places. I think there's a fair amount of fuzziness going on with the CNVX program anyways.

That number was from GlobalSecurity; it seems pretty accurate. And yeah, there's some fuzziness around the program as CVN-77 has some of the stuff on CVN(X), IIRC.

Col. Crackpot wrote:

Montcalm wrote:I recently discovered we had four carriers in the 1950s but the stupid government sold them

most likely WWII leftovers......werent's Canada's WWII flatops old and British to begin with?

Two leftovers and two new ones.
www.naval-museum.mb.ca/ships/carriers.htm

Coyote wrote:Some nice German U-Boots, the new little diesel-electrics, would do quite nicely.

hey, i just read we had a new sub, the u31 or something, the first submarine in the world powered by hydrogen fuel cells which are independant from the air outside for extended diving abilities.

salm wrote:

Coyote wrote:Some nice German U-Boots, the new little diesel-electrics, would do quite nicely.

hey, i just read we had a new sub, the u31 or something, the first submarine in the world powered by hydrogen fuel cells which are independant from the air outside for extended diving abilities.

That is too cool! Do these things run solely on the cells, or is it backed up by a diesel engine as well? Damn, if there was a way to extract the hydrogen right from the water... the things would be limited only by food supplies.

This kind of development bodes well for setting up undewater research stations for the long-term...

I don't know what you're whining about, you could be like the poor Taiwanese Navy;

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... i-shih.htm


From Hazegray.org:

Hai Shih (Guppy II) class patrol submarines
Displacement: 2,440 tons submerged
Dimensions: 93.57 x 8.33 x 5.18 meters (307 x 27 x 17 feet)
Propulsion: Diesel-electric, 4 diesels, 2 shafts, 5,200 shp, 16 knots
Crew: 81
Sonar: BQR-2B passive, BQS-4C active, DUUG-1B intercept
Armament: 10 21 inch torpedo tubes (6 forward, 4 aft; 22 torpedoes)
Ex-USN. Completely obsolete and probably limited to shallow diving.

Number Name Year Homeport Notes
736 Hai Shih 1945/73 Tsoying Ex-SS 478
794 Hai Po 1946/73 Tsoying Ex-SS 426

Of course, comparing the Tawiwanese Navy the the RCN is a bit like comparing...the RCN to the USN

Does Australia still have carriers? I know they had some a few years ago, but..? And I think India has some carriers as well, at least two, either ex-British WW2 or Cold War Sovie leftovers.

If Japan lifts their defense restrictions, It'd be interesting to see the Rising Sun flag fluttering from the mast of a new-made carrier... considering that USN carriers are either realy old and in need of replacement, or quite new and unlikely to be sold anytime soon, the Japanese would probably just build their own.

China, after shitting biscuits, would follow suit, probably making copies of Russian carriers... hmmmm....

Coyote wrote:Does Australia still have carriers? I know they had some a few years ago, but..? And I think India has some carriers as well, at least two, either ex-British WW2 or Cold War Sovie leftovers.

IIRC, the MoD was going to sell the brand-spanking new Invincible to Australia immediately prior to the Falklands. Obviously, the MoD changed their mind and Australia never got an replacement for their carrier.

India used to have two ex-British carriers...I think they're down to the ex-Hermes, the Vikrant I think. Right now India is in the middle of a $6 billion deal with Russia to aquire a shitload of tanks (that's my professional description as a USN Cryppie), 2 Akula SSNs, and they're trying to aquire the Admiral Gorshkov, which is a bit like a CVL except more armed. Imagine it as a combo-crusier-carrier, like an ISD. Russia's trying to peddle some Mig-29K's (extensively modified for the Gorshkov's short deck) for it's air arm. If they fail, India will continue to use SeaHarriers.

phongn wrote:JFK is still in not-so-good condition, I hear, even with all the repairs they made.

That's what I've heard. All of the CVs are supposed to be in pretty bad shape, the Kitty Hawks and the JFK both. Mostly age and short sighted maintenance in the Clinton years.

phongn wrote:That number was from GlobalSecurity; it seems pretty accurate. And yeah, there's some fuzziness around the program as CVN-77 has some of the stuff on CVN(X), IIRC.

I got that from Hazegray and Warships One. Probably just date tinkering. The CVNX program seems all over the place. Especially given the ops tempo we've been maintaining.

It would suprise me if we just gradually update the Nimitz design for at least the next few carriers.

weemadando wrote:Can I just drop in and say:

"Ph34r t3h Collins Class for it shall 0wNz0r j00 a11."

*drops to ground laughing*

The Swedes sure know how to design conventional submarines, eh? I dare to say their upcoming "Viking" subs will be better than the ones what the Germans will be launching in the near future.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

Ted wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Argentina had a better solution to Russian poaching in the late 1970’s though. Send out a lighter cruiser and open fire. Soviets got rather pissed after the General Belgrano damaged several trawlers and seized a number more.

Ah, the Belgrano.

Sunk by WWII torpedoes, fired from the only successful SSN.

Mk.VIII torpedoes from WWII launched from the HMS Conquerer I believe. The only nuke sub to fire in anger on another naval vessel, IIRC.

Yes, that's the only vessel engaged by an SSN in combat. In fact, there has been only one other success by submarines since WW2; in 1971 a Pakistani diesel boat sank an Indian frigate.

Coyote wrote:Does Australia still have carriers? I know they had some a few years ago, but..? And I think India has some carriers as well, at least two, either ex-British WW2 or Cold War Sovie leftovers.

If Japan lifts their defense restrictions, It'd be interesting to see the Rising Sun flag fluttering from the mast of a new-made carrier... considering that USN carriers are either realy old and in need of replacement, or quite new and unlikely to be sold anytime soon, the Japanese would probably just build their own.

China, after shitting biscuits, would follow suit, probably making copies of Russian carriers... hmmmm....

Australia gave up its carrier arm in the 1970's. There where plans for the country to buy one of the British I class Harrier carriers, but then the Falkland islands war happened and the UK decided to keep it.


If Japan started building a carrier China would likely have a dozen Kilo's waiting for it on its first mission. The rest of Asia would view such a major offesnive weapon in Japanses hands very poorly. However so would many people in Japan, at least for now.

Stormbringer wrote:
I got that from Hazegray and Warships One. Probably just date tinkering. The CVNX program seems all over the place. Especially given the ops tempo we've been maintaining.

It would suprise me if we just gradually update the Nimitz design for at least the next few carriers.

Warships1 is a good source, but its pages don't get updated very often, especially the newer stuff. But then, its really more oriented towards history, and the specs of ships that have already been scrapped don't change very often.

Coyote wrote:

salm wrote:

Coyote wrote:Some nice German U-Boots, the new little diesel-electrics, would do quite nicely.

hey, i just read we had a new sub, the u31 or something, the first submarine in the world powered by hydrogen fuel cells which are independant from the air outside for extended diving abilities.

That is too cool! Do these things run solely on the cells, or is it backed up by a diesel engine as well? Damn, if there was a way to extract the hydrogen right from the water... the things would be limited only by food supplies.

This kind of development bodes well for setting up undewater research stations for the long-term...

they´ve got a diesel motor as well but it can also run on hydrogen fuel cell only which makes it a lot more silent.

here´s a link:

Dressed Link

Dress thy links! ~Dalton

Sea Skimmer wrote:Warships1 is a good source, but its pages don't get updated very often, especially the newer stuff. But then, its really more oriented towards history, and the specs of ships that have already been scrapped don't change very often.

I'm not suprised if that isn't the latest given date. I get the feeling that the Enterprise's decommisioning date is bouncing around a lot. Probably because of the political football that her succersor class seems to have become.

salm wrote:
they´ve got a diesel motor as well but it can also run on hydrogen fuel cell only which makes it a lot more silent.

here´s a link:

However the range and speed is quite limited. Not like AIP is anything new though. And it still doesnt make SSK's anything more then somwhat mobile minefields.

Isn't the CVNX supposed to run Win2k, like discussed in another thread? Sure it's the best version of Windows, but eww. Or was that a destroyer?

They should have picked some version of BSD, like OpenBSD -very secure- though that OS is kind of limited compared to Linux or FreeBSD. For example it doesn't have SMP support.

And how is Windows supposed to run on obsolete hardware? I thought all military computers were hardened obsolete stuff? It would be funny (or not) if someone fired a cheap EMP weapon at a carrier with fancy new electronics, and it was rendered inoperational.

Pu-239 wrote:Isn't the CVNX supposed to run Win2k, like discussed in another thread? Sure it's the best version of Windows, but eww. Or was that a destroyer?

They should have picked some version of BSD, like OpenBSD -very secure- though that OS is kind of limited compared to Linux or FreeBSD. For example it doesn't have SMP support.

And how is Windows supposed to run on obsolete hardware? I thought all military computers were hardened obsolete stuff? It would be funny (or not) if someone fired a cheap EMP weapon at a carrier with fancy new electronics, and it was rendered inoperational.

If it runs on a windows program the enemy will succeed in sinking the ship

Pu-239 wrote:Isn't the CVNX supposed to run Win2k, like discussed in another thread? Sure it's the best version of Windows, but eww. Or was that a destroyer?

They should have picked some version of BSD, like OpenBSD -very secure- though that OS is kind of limited compared to Linux or FreeBSD. For example it doesn't have SMP support.

And how is Windows supposed to run on obsolete hardware? I thought all military computers were hardened obsolete stuff? It would be funny (or not) if someone fired a cheap EMP weapon at a carrier with fancy new electronics, and it was rendered inoperational.

That was true in the mid 1990's. not anymore, the US military is now adapting quite modern computers, at least to new projects. CVNX is going to have something like a one terabyte per second LAN for example. The older systems generally had specialized custom Operating systems. That made training a bitch and upgrades difficult at best.

CVNX will be running some specialized semi custom version of Win2000. The US Army is adapting Linux for its Future Combat System however.