It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Italy Produces First F-35 Outside US

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Um it still has moving parts. It still has a shuttle that connects to the aircraft that goes down the rails. Only instead of steam it uses magnets.

A ship that is 248 meters, not 750, also has extremely limited deck space. Congratulations, you just wasted a third of it because aircraft can't taxi over the catapult laying on the deck.




posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You are right about the length differential. I picked that statistic up from the daily Mail I never should've trusted it. They are significantly smaller almost 400 feet. Then we get back into the argument between the Essex carriers and the escort carriers during World War II by the way a warship that is 818 feet long is not a small warship.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

The USS America is 844 feet long. If they remove everything but two SH-60s it can carry 20 F-35s. But then it's almost useless for any other mission.

If they were to lay the catapult on the deck like you suggest, if it kept working, they'd lose probably half those planes.

You're adding weight, and a lot of complexity to the ships. That cuts down on range, fuel they can carry, aircraft they can carry, weapons they can carry, and adds a lot of maintenance time. Both for the ship and for the catapult. They'd have to be constantly working on it to ensure it keeps working.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And the exact same thing limited the escort carriers during World War II which were significantly smaller than the Essex class. You are very knowledgeable and I turn to you for education in these matters. But not even you can't predict the future of naval warfare.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

And the smaller carriers got away with it because they DIDN'T NEED CATAPULTS.

No I can't predict it, but I can tell you that you don't design a ship for one mission and then radically change it after operating it for years. You don't build a Destroyer, then after 10 years suddenly decide to level the aft end and put an extended helicopter deck on it. That's about the same as what you're suggesting.

Did you bother to read how much it would cost to convert the Queen Elizabeth class into a CATOBAR ship? For that cost you might as well buy a new hull and purpose build it as a CATOBAR from the start.
edit on 3/18/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I've seen films of them taking off from escort carriers with the catapult. I must've admit you put a good feather in there because it took me a while to find reference to catapults on escort carriers but here you go.


An FM-2 of VC-13 taking off from the USS Core (CVE-13), having just dis-engaged from the catapult. The catapult bridle is visible just below the left main gear. The colors on this aircraft are dark gull gray over white. This combination was used for airwings operating mainly in the North Atlantic. It was also carried on TBF/TBM Avengers, F4F-4s and FM-1s, PV-1s and several other types.


source for catapults on escort carriers

Go have a look for yourself the pictures are way towards the bottom. CVE's were the escort carriers The crews joked that CVE meant combustible volatile and explosive.


As far as your mention goes about knocking down the aft superstructure. Have you even looked at the ship we are discussing I posted it on page 2. Nope I don't see a aft superstructure.





posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Any that had catapults were built with them from the start.

I said a DESTROYER. That is not the ship I'm talking about.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That is precisely the ship we have been talking about. ( bangs head on desk) lol

japan's new flat top destroyer



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

No, in THAT PARTICULAR POST I was talking about a DESTROYER. That is not a Destroyer. A Destroyer is a fleet escort. Why would I talk about leveling the back of a ship and adding an extended helicopter deck on a ship that ALREADY HAS A HELICOPTER DECK?

Destroyer



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I know exactly what a destroyer is. But when I posted that picture on page 2 I was claiming that ship was actually built for flight operations not as a destroyer. And we have been back-and-forth on this issue for what two pages now?

That was the whole premise of my discussion with you from the beginning that the ship pictured is not a destroyer/helicopter tender it was in fact meant to be developed as an aircraft carrier.

Look up the class of ship Japan claims they are destroyers my argument was that they are not. You might've missed that because you have been taking on two or three posters at once I noticed. ( I hate when that happens)

That explains why there has been such a void between us in this discussion where normally we don't have a void.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

There isn't a void.

The point I was making is that you don't build this and then years later level the back end to fly more helicopters off it.

Just like you don't build a helicopter carrier, and then years later add a nuclear reactor and catapult to it. Not only does it not make sense, it costs as much as an entirely new hull purpose built to do the same thing. And by the time the modification is done your new hull is mostly built.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

A void has existed between me and you in this discussion since I posted that picture. You heard the word destroyer and naturally assumed it was a destroyer. Earlier in the thread I regularly put quotation marks around the word destroyer.

You have been stuck on the word destroyer and didn't bother to talk about the class of ships I was speaking of from page 2.

I don't need to ask you if that looks like a destroyer because you already said it doesn't. There are several prototypes of sealed nuclear reactors that are small and now under development that can power a catapult that requires 95 MJ. That ship is in fact multi floored and way above the oceans waves except in serious weather. Of coarse a refit is expensive but yes for that ship a deck mounted EMAL would make a good fit. And it is as simple as plugging a small sealed nuclear reactor into one system to power the EMAL. I have not been talking about nuclear reactors to power the ship. I've been talking about one reactor to power the EMAL.

Every argument you've made against my opinions is Null and void because you did not even know what kind of ship I was talking about.

Keep an eye on me you'll be asking me to join thread killers sooner or later I have that knack. I can punch more holes in discussions than a doughnut maker punches every day.


edit on 18-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

No there isn't. I have NEVER assumed that you meant a Destroyer. I knew exactly what ship you were talking about. Don't sit here and tell me what I did and didn't know. I was talking about this class of ship before you ever heard about it months ago, and having this same argument.

My arguments are NOT null and void. You don't build a ship and the redesign it to do a totally different mission. It costs too much to do, and the rebuild will never do the mission as well as a new build hull will.

It. Doesn't. Matter. You can have a tiny reactor, and the greatest catapult ever designed, and you'll still have to do a major refit and redesign to fit them onto a hull that doesn't have them from the start.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah I saw it on military factor over year ago and I've known about it. You clearly mentioned removing the superstructure from the rear of the deck when you were talking about a different ship. I'm done with this conversation I thought you were much more rational.

By the way almost all escort carriers were originally merchant ships or cruisers they were redesign and refitted in a time of war ( not to mention the USS Missouri and Iowa,Both battleships that were taken out a mothball status and refitted in the 80s for combat) but I'm sure you'll find some reason why that doesn't count.

My God you act like no country has ever repurpose a ship when it has happened throughout history.
edit on 18-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: Blackfinger

"Helo ops only", huh?

I'm just saying that I've never once seen a helo use a ski jump like the ones the Canberra's quite clearly have...


Remember the Canberra is a Spanish design that originally carried Harriers - the Aussies have already stated they are retaining the ski-jump for possible use by allies in joint operations. The possibility of Australia buying B's is also being mooted.

And of course helo's with wheels do actually benefit if they can have a bit of a takeoff roll too.......just saying....



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Let me make this perfectly clear one more time.

I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS SHIP WHEN I SAID THAT .

Is that clear enough? You act like this is the only Destroyer built in the world.

Yes ships get repurposed, but you don't build a ship for one mission and then completely rebuild it five or six years later. You t really think they're going to spend say $450M for a brand new ship and then after a few years spend another couple hundred million plus to upgrade it to a CATOBAR system? It would be cheaper to but a dedicated hull.

Why is that do freaking hard to understand? Christ your military would need a budget bigger than the US.

Yes they were merchant ships, many still under construction, others were torn down to the hull.

Wow, computer and electronics upgrades are the same thing now.

Apparently you're smarter than our admirals and ship designers, because instead of just tearing our LHDs down and putting cataoukts on them they're building a whole new class and still aren't making them CATOBAR capable.

edit on 3/18/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58

a reply to: Greathouse

Let me make this perfectly clear one more time.

I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS SHIP WHEN I SAID THAT .

Is that clear enough? You act like this is the only Destroyer built in the world.

Yes ships get repurposed, but you don't build a ship for one mission and then completely rebuild it five or six years later. You t really think they're going to spend say $450M for a brand new ship and then after a few years spend another couple hundred million plus to upgrade it to a CATOBAR system? It would be cheaper to but a dedicated hull.

Why is that do freaking hard to understand? Christ your military would need a budget bigger than the US.

Yes they were merchant ships, many still under construction, others were torn down to the hull.

Wow, computer and electronics upgrades are the same thing now.

Apparently you're smarter than our admirals and ship designers, because instead of just tearing our LHDs down and putting cataoukts on them they're building a whole new class and still aren't making them CATOBAR capable.


Take a long breath Zaph.... In......... and out........ Please think about your health, we need you here for a long time



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Let me make this perfectly clear to you

that was the only ship I was talking about since page 2

Let me also make this perfectly clear. I never mentioned installing a CATABOR System!!!!! You did!!!!!

Cruisers or also repurposed during World War II into aircraft carriers.

I sure hope this thread isn't thrown away in about 10 years because this will be one you regret.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

What do you think a catapult system IS? It's called CATOBAR for a reason. CATAPULT take off BARRIER landing.

I used a freaking analogy. If I had realized how difficult that would be to understand I would have thought twice about it.

No I don't think it will be. I have yet to see a military pay what you expect them to pay to convert something to a different mission. They would end up paying almost twice for a single ship.

The converted cruisers were under construction when they were converted. The Independence class and Saipan class.
edit on 3/18/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

EMALS Are far different from your standard CATOBAR Systems.

One of your biggest point you're stuck on is why refit a ship when they can build a new one. I brought up the Iowa class battleships. I'm sure it Would have been much easier to build a new ship than two refit the ships to carry.


World War II, Korea: 9 × 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal. Mark 7 guns 20 × 5-inch (127 mm)/38 cal. Mark 12 guns 80 × 40 mm/56 cal. Bofors 49 × 20 mm/70 cal.
Cold War, Gulf War additions: 32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk 16 × RGM-84 Harpoon 4 × 20 mm (.78 inch).Phalanx CIWS



The reason the Iowa class battleships were refitted was to counter the threat from the Kirov-class battlecruiser. Japan is under similar circumstances at this time the Constitution limits them in the type of ships they can build. They're building "destroyers" with a completely flat top that will be easier to convert to an aircraft carrier than to build an entirely new aircraft carrier in a limited amount of time.

And ships are much easier to refit when you have a preformed plans for the refit. Hell you didn't even know what ship I was talking about when you made your blanket statements.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join