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.

 

Italy Produces First F-35 Outside US

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


I'd give up on this one.

You're going to flatten your head into a pancake.




posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

EMALS is STILL a catapult, which means it's STILL considered a CATOBAR system.

No, I'm stuck on they're not going to pay more than half the cost of a new hull to refit an older hull. The first Izumo cost $1.2B. A SINGLE EMALS cost $713M in FY13. So they're going to pay 3/4ths the cost of a new hull to retrofit onto an older ship. Of course they are.

Then there's the minor fact that the launch unit weight is 80,000 pounds. On a ship that size that's a LOT of weight to put into a small area.

The battleships were refitted with missiles and other upgrades, but they didn't require installation of a nuclear reactor into a hull that wasn't designed for it, or a near total rebuild of the deck.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Now you're stuck in the past when I'm talking about the future. The cost of EMALS Will come down it's new technology right now.

Repurposing the deck has already been covered they can be deck mounted.

And yes refitting the Iowa class battleships called for a massive improvement in electric Systems.
edit on 18-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

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 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
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 plans to remove the C turret apparatus on the USS Kentucky, install a guided missile system and reclassify it as a BBG were scraped due to the high costs even though it was 75% complete and would have been easier to reconfigure over the other Iowas.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

It went UP between FY08 and FY13, which is the last year the cost is available for. It went up about $100M in five years. It was about $618M in FY08.

What part of "If you just lay it on the deck, you lose space for aircraft" did you miss earlier? They can't taxi overt it if it's just laying on the deck or they risk damaging the aircraft and the catapult. That's in addition to the risk from weather and water.

Have you seen the amount of power EMALS uses? ONE launch could power 12,000 houses.
edit on 3/18/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I am well aware of that fact they're even proposals for ski jumps catapults and arrester wires on the rear of the battleships. In the long run they took a different approach.


During this reactivation, several concepts entailing removal of the aft 16 in turret were considered by the Navy, including Martin Marietta's proposal to replace the turret with servicing facilities for 12 AV-8B Harrier STOVL jumpjets, Charles Myers' proposal for replacement of the turret with vertical launch systems for missiles and a flight deck for Marine helicopters. Naval Institute Proceedings proposed a canted flight deck (complete with a steam catapult) and arrestor wires to operate F/A-18 Hornet fighters. Plans for these conversions were dropped in 1984,[70] but each battleship was overhauled to burn navy distillate fuel and modernized to carry electronic warfare suites, close-in weapon systems (CIWS) for self-defense, and missiles.[63] It was determined that the total cost of reactivating and modernising one battleship was roughly the same as the cost of building a new Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate.[71]


It seems that they converted a battleship into a heavy guided missile battlecruiser. At the cost of making one frigate.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Um no. They kept the big guns. They ADDED a missile capability. And it wasn't a large capability either.

But if they had removed the aft turret they would have done exactly what you're proposing with the Izumo. But they didn't because it would have been too expensive.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The catapult does not run the entire length of the deck. And you keep talking about damage from the elements. Apparently these elements have not stopped Turrents from turning for Over 150 years. There's a thing called maintenance (are you even aware of this term?) and the "destroyer" is a multi floor vessel that rides well above the Waves except in the worst conditions.

If the EMAL System is so ungodly expensive why is it going in on ford class aircraft carriers? One of the last things you failed to bring up is that even though expensive ( and I believe cost will come down) in a time of war it is far easier to repurpose a ship like that than to build an entirely new aircraft carrier which Japan is not allowed to do under its constitution.

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



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

The project I was referencing was in the 1950's when the hull was not even complete and it was determined that a purpose-built ship was a much better option than a heavy modification of an incomplete hull, let alone a total repurposing of an existing craft.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Lol the Izumo class doesn't have a aft turn that needs to be removed. It is a completely flat top and I use this term very loosely "destroyer" it is nothing more a name to disguise a aircraft carrier to keep current obligations with their constitution. Similar to the "pocket battleships" Adolf Hitler built during World War II to comply with treaty obligations.
edit on 18-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If you're talking the 50s you must be talking about the USS Illinois or Kentucky who were both scrapped before they were even completed. I guess you wouldn't put a flight deck on a scraped ship.
edit on 18-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
If you're talking the 50s you must be talking about the USS Illinois or Kentucky who were both scrapped before they were even completed. I guess you wouldn't put a flight deck on a scrap ship.


I specifically mentioned the Kentucky above and that there were plans to covert it into an aircraft carrier prior to use as a guided missile battleship. It was not scrapped for some time as it was close to 75% complete as I also mentioned above.



edit on 18-3-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

And they use most of the deck to park aircraft. The outer portion is the runway, the inner portion is parking. So they either have to put it outside, and juggle planes around for landing operations using a barrier, or the inside and have to juggle them around for takeoff. Either way results in losing aircraft from the ship.

And a a Nimitz class can get water over the deck when it's NOT "the worst conditions", but somehow a much smaller Destroyer isn't going to?

EMALS offers a lot of advantages over a steam catapult. Heavier launch weight of the aircraft, smoother launch for the aircraft, less maintenance of the catapult, both planned and unplanned.... The Navy decided that the cost was worth it when putting it on a new build ship.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Go read the damn post I was replying to. You were talking about the Iowa class battleships.



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

BTW The Japanese have been running similar systems on their bullet trains for years. Just a thought but do you have cost projections from the Japanese Navy or are you using US cost projections on EMALS?


(post by Greathouse removed for a manners violation)

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

They would be getting it from the US therefore they would be using US pricing.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
But it was scrapped. Of course I would not make any modifications to his ship I planned to scrap.


What part are you not getting? There were no plans to scrap the Kentucky as it was 75% complete and they did not want to waste the hull or the work put into it to that point. There were multiple plans to repurpose it prior to it being scrapped 15 years after it was laid down.


edit on 18-3-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join