WT Forums

I thought this thread was about save the hog,(although there are 3 other threads on that subject)but I only see a couple pnls on that subject. The rest are about save the b.b.s, f-14s, whale, donkeys, dolphins, little orange and black kitty cats <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>.
Boy a lot of things need saving

koobster...it doesn't take much to get threads off topic around here <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood moderator...

If you can't go fast...go Ugly

_________________

Just my wierd scince of humor poking though<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> And yeah the Big-E does or at least did have 8 reactors when they built it<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yup. I went to www.FAS.org, like you said. Still has eight reactors.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> it doesn't take much to get threads off topic around here <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I believe the official term for it is "Hijacking a thread" <img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> 5000 n.m / 96 hours = 52 knots!!! The JFK isn't even a nuke. Can this be true? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

For some reason I doubt this. Maybe there is some explanation to it, but I don't find 52 knots logical.

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI

Maybe we should kill this conversation because there really are some secrets that are right in front of our faces that shouldnt be told. So I wont answer the question of whether 52 knots is sustainable. But I'll ask a question.................anyone got nads enough to try and deck run an A10 ? I have a dream of a rapid A10 deployment by CBG anywhere in the world. Think about it, it would be a lot quicker to crane them on, move 'em and deck run 'em. Kinda makes ya go HHMMMM ! <img src=icon_smile_cool.gif border=0 align=middle>

_________________
YGBSM !

"5000 n.m / 96 hours = 52 knots!!! The JFK isn't even a nuke. Can this be true?"

NO.

And flank speed for the Iowa's is in excess of 35 knots, 33 is the 'listed' flank speed.

I'm only telling you what i've been told Chad. Nuke carriers do not hit the speeds that people think they do. The Iowa's speed advantadge is even larger in rough seas.



"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Yeah this might me a good topic to kill...we are getting way off the A-10 issue, and I trie not to visit this part of the forum unless it is specificaly A-10 related...Sorry guys. Lets just say that Nuke propulsion has its advantages...so does gas turbines (in smaller ships)....Newport News has some interesting figures from the USS John C. Stennis trials...The numbers are pretty shocking.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Methinx that it is unlikely i would quash a debate i'm actively engaged in, but hey if you want to drop it it's fine with me.



"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Well that being the case, I still think your wrong...
CVN's top speeds are still highly classified, where as the Iowas are vintage 40's technology, with late 1950's upgrades, they have been decommed twice and the figures we have access to are not exactly secrets of the state....And the published figures on the CVNs being as conservative as they are still faster than the Iowa's.

I have a few QM's that know for sure I will get the gouge from them.



If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Still haven't forgotten about this..I will be gone for the weekend, I have something in the works and will post it under general chat on monday.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

How do you figure?

The listed max speed of a Nimitz is 30kts(It is actually a few knots higher), and the listed max speed of an Iowa is 33kts(and is actually in excess of 35kts).

If ya want to debate this with actual sailors, try the battleship boards at www.warships1.com

Those guys DO know the real speeds.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

#1 I am dubious of discussion forums for sources of facts...For obvious reasons, and I myself am one of those reasons. We have already been over that.

#2 You have never seen the maximum flank speed, or the endurance of that speed of a Nimitz class CVN...It is still classified, neither of us know. And anybody divulging exact figures is spitballing. But you can be certain that the 30+ knot is very conversavitive. So your argument is already curtailed by a unknown. The Iowa's have been listed at 33-35 knots (35 knots I have only seen once on the F.A.S website)...Its hard to say, I have talked with a few engineering sur/war officers, they don't know either...But...The Iowa class BB's with their archaic powerplants lacked the speed endurance to efficiently steam with a modern CVBG. Thats one reason they were retired, are the Iowa's capable of doing better with a modern powerplant??? Probably...They have a very clean hull design. But to say that 50 year old, oil fired boilers will stay with nuclear powerd CVN's and state of the art turbine powered DDG's and CG's for a lengthy deployment is making me wonder why we ever developed nuclear powerplants for our CV's...or why we retired ships like the Bon Homme Richard, Ranger, or Coral Sea.....Might as well kept the mighty Pacicific fleet from WWII intact and just added cruise missiles.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Edited by - chadrewsky on Jun 08 2003 9:41 PM

Edited by - chadrewsky on Jun 08 2003 9:43 PM

That 'actual sailors' comment was NOT directed at you as a slight, btw...i hope it didn't come off that way.

If you want some facts on the speeds of the fast battleships the USNFSA is very hard to beat.

On the Nimitz, someone spilled the beans to me. Of course he may not be telling the truth, but i have no reason to doubt him.

In actuality, the fastest vessels in the navy travel UNDER the sea if what the Dolphins tell me is true.

"The Iowa class BB's with their archaic powerplants lacked the speed endurance to efficiently steam with a modern CVBG. Thats one reason they were retired, are the Iowa's capable of doing better with a modern powerplant???"

Interesting that when the Wisconson was operating with a CVBG in 1990 in the Atlantic, and they got the orders to reach the gulf "At the fastest possible speed" that they beat the carrier there by TWO DAYS....through a Cyclone. Range is hardly an issue for the Iowas, their unrefuelled range exceeds most CV's. A Tico or Burke couldn't even begin to hope to keep up with an Iowa in a sprint or a marathon.

Check out the USNFSA site, they have all the data posted there.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Edited by - m21 sniper on Jun 09 2003 12:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> But I'll ask a question.................anyone got nads enough to try and deck run an A10 ? I have a dream of a rapid A10 deployment by CBG anywhere in the world. Think about it, it would be a lot quicker to crane them on, move 'em and deck run 'em. Kinda makes ya go HHMMMM ! <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Already been done, but not by me. Talk to Boomer, he's the one responsible:

http://forum.a-10.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2421

<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kaptors/images/seahog.jpg" border=0>

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In actuality, the fastest vessels in the navy travel UNDER the sea if what the Dolphins tell me is true <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is consitant with everything I have ever read, or been told............

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Interesting that when the Wisconson was operating with a CVBG in 1990 in the Atlantic, and they got the orders to reach the gulf "At the fastest possible speed" that they beat the carrier there by TWO DAYS....through a Cyclone. Range is hardly an issue for the Iowas, their unrefuelled range exceeds most CV's. A Tico or Burke couldn't even begin to hope to keep up with an Iowa in a sprint or a marathon <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

What carrier battle group was the Wisconsin in? I was under the impression it was the Saratoga CVBG. Could be wrong, but that is a CV. I am talking Nuclear. My whole point here is/was the effientcy that the aformentioned ships steam from point "A" to point "B" in a rapid, effieicent way. Make no mistake, I like the Iowa class BB's.........wish they were still in service, only under different conditions.

Iowas have something like a 20,000 mile range........but thats at a speed constant of 15 knots. My point is that modern warships can steam ,faster, and farther......cheaper, together as a CVNBG.

Iowas were designed for surface warfare, thus have an impressive flank speed for such a large ship, they were designed for quick aceleration and evasive manuevers while engaging in gunnery with another surface targets(s).....There counterpart CV's at the time, were not fast ships by todays standards, thus the Iowa's were designed with their cruising speeds in mind, as a collective CVBG or task force.

I will use this as an anology....The A-6 and F-14 community slams the fuel fraction fo the F-18, because its cruising speed is something like 75 knots higher. Thus for it to cruise on an escort mission with an A-6, or a strike mission with an F-14, it is crusing at its less than optimum fuel consumption speed for the design of the Hornet..........Thus its range is even shorter. The F-18 does better when it is working alone, or with other F-18's.........The F-14 was designed, with the A-6 in mind on escort missions. When the F-18 is used at its correct operational parameters..........Its range increases.

The Iowas hold alot of fuel, and yes they can accerlate better.......But, when used with modern combat vessels, it must operate its powerplant in conditions not conducive to its peak effiency. Modern CVN's, CG's and DDG's were designed to work as a CVNBG, where as the Iowas represented older technology, that was not even considered when the Nimitz class was designed (Rickover, and the SECNAV considered the Iowa's obsolete).

So really I am not arguing the capabilitys of the Iowa's, only their capabilities when in a modern CVNBG........You may have some good gouge that I don't...........so I am not disputing a drag race, only the cost of the drag race, and the endurance of it in a modern CVNBG.

I think we are missing each other on this one.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

I got a question: Were Iowa's around during the first Gulf War, and did they actually fire shots in anger? Or were they just in the Gulf as "scenery", there because every other ship in the USN was there?

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI

Big Ross, Yes, and Yes.

A whole Battalion of Iraqi's surrendered to the Wisconson's UAV because the unit next to them had been hit the previous night with 16" guns, and it was their turn next.

The Iowa's also fired numerous TLAMS, and coordinated the launch of all TLAMs from USN ships during the first Gulf war.

Check out the USNFSA site, they have ALL the details, rds fired, etc, etc.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> By the way, our F-15s and F-16s have been operating well below 10,000 [feet] when necessary to attack the enemy since Desert Storm, and we've got the film to prove it!"<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Since when does film of an F-16 augering in constitute evidence that an F-16 is working beloew 10,000 feet?

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI

There was ONE instance in all of the ops in Afdirtistan where a two ship of Mudhens came in and did a few gun runs, in the face of no missile threat.

The whole rest of the time they spent over 10,000 feet.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

[quote]
There was ONE instance in all of the ops in Afdirtistan where a two ship of Mudhens came in and did a few gun runs, in the face of no missile threat.

----------
Twister 5-1 and 2. First time they had ever done a strafing run. The Hunt for Bin Laden, Robin Moore. Interesting book. Snake Eaters weren't too thrilled with Franks and the CIA. This confirms what I had heard from a pretty good source. I only mention it now, because he died from being ate up in Nam. Agent Orange there and he stayed in the business way too long.

Spectre had pulled off station when the Sun came up.

Jack

Doesn't the M61A3 have a special setting for strafing? If the manufacturers were smart enough to add the setting, shouldn't the pilots train for it if they ever have to use it?

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI

The 'strafing' setting is a mode of the radar, not the gun itself.

F-15E's are deep interdiction strike platforms, so it's no surprise they don't practice strafing.



"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"



(I didn't edit it, pressed the wrong button snipe)

Edited by - prkiii on Jun 10 2003 03:17 AM

Yeah, but F-16's were supposed to be CAS fighters as part of their job, so they WOULD practice starfing, wouldn't they?

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The 'strafing' setting is a mode of the radar, not the gun itself.

F-15E's are deep interdiction strike platforms, so it's no surprise they don't practice strafing.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Actual, the main reason they don't use the gun often is because of the increased avionics. The bay the ammo drum is, which is the same location is A thru D models has a large amount of the bay taken up by avionics. The ammo drum is considerably smaller on an E model, and basically the gun is a last resort.

Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood moderator...

If you can't go fast...go Ugly

_________________

So, basically they don't use the gun because they don't habe much ammo, and because firing the gun messes up the avionics suite of the plane?

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI