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.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
I really don't see where bringing a CV back, that's been sitting in mothballs for 20ish years is going to improve availability. They're going to blow half their budget just trying to get her back to sea.
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: Zaphod58
I really don't see where bringing a CV back, that's been sitting in mothballs for 20ish years is going to improve availability. They're going to blow half their budget just trying to get her back to sea.
And why an oil fired carrier?
Maybe we could have the Army get a division of mounted cavalry with pikes and sabers activated in case we have a war with Mexico.
originally posted by: butcherguy
And why an oil fired carrier?
Maybe we could have the Army get a division of mounted cavalry with pikes and sabers activated in case we have a war with Mexico.
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: Zaphod58
I really don't see where bringing a CV back, that's been sitting in mothballs for 20ish years is going to improve availability. They're going to blow half their budget just trying to get her back to sea.
And why an oil fired carrier?
Maybe we could have the Army get a division of mounted cavalry with pikes and sabers activated in case we have a war with Mexico.
An inept analogy. The big carriers and subs are all nukes. Everything else is oil fired today. In large ships the engineering plants themselves work the same way they did in the late 1800's. They're all steam-powered. What heats the steam is the only difference. The nukes' advantage is simply a long time between visits to the gas station.
As the USS Kitty Hawk sails its final course, it marks the close of an era for steam power in the U.S. Navy.
The aircraft carrier, which is scheduled for decommissioning in 2009, relies on its 1,200-pound-per-square-inch steam boilers to launch aircraft, propel the ship and provide hot water for showers and washing dishes, the Navy said in a news release. The boiler system was first introduced in 1948 on experimental Mitscher-class destroyers. Although it was temperamental and complicated, it replaced the less powerful 600-psi boilers of the day, according to the Navy. Sixty years later, the Kitty Hawk and its steam technology soon will be replaced by the nuclear-powered USS George Washington. The old carrier’s boiler technicians might be the last sailors to operate the conventional — and challenging — steam power system, the Navy said. "This is the last time you’re going to see eight conventional boilers for a steam plant," Master Chief Petty Officer Michael Gwinn of the Kitty Hawk engineering department was quoted as saying in the release. Gwinn, who has worked on the boilers of six different ships, said one reason he took orders to Kitty Hawk was to help new sailors learn about the complicated 1,200-psi boiler setup before they were transferred to ships with smaller boilers or gas turbines. Many Navy ships now are powered by gas turbines that can be operated and fixed by pushing a couple of buttons, he said. The Kitty Hawk’s boiler room is a place of sweat and manual labor, Gwinn said in the release. The ship’s boiler technicians say they’ll miss the camaraderie in the "pits." Master Chief Petty Officer Joseph Richardson, another former boiler technician, said his favorite part from 28 years working on eight steam plants was "lighting the fires." "We know that we can’t get under way without [lighting off the boilers]," Richardson was quoted saying in the release. "If you’ve been doing this your whole career, you’re going to miss it." The Kitty Hawk left its forward-deployed port of Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan, on May 28 after nearly a decade there.
originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: schuyler
Why would refueling the Nimitz be an issue?
The Nimitz had an RCOH in 2001. I would think she's not due for another RCOH until the mid 20's.
She should still be good for a few years.
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: Zaphod58
I really don't see where bringing a CV back, that's been sitting in mothballs for 20ish years is going to improve availability. They're going to blow half their budget just trying to get her back to sea.
And why an oil fired carrier?
Maybe we could have the Army get a division of mounted cavalry with pikes and sabers activated in case we have a war with Mexico.
An inept analogy. The big carriers and subs are all nukes. Everything else is oil fired today. In large ships the engineering plants themselves work the same way they did in the late 1800's. They're all steam-powered. What heats the steam is the only difference. The nukes' advantage is simply a long time between visits to the gas station.
You didn't cover gas turbine technology. They burn liquid fuel, but it is aircraft fuel, not fuel oil. They are used because they can achieve propulsion from a cold iron condition very quickly because the engines do not need to create steam to spin the turbines, the combustion gases do that.
I have served in the Navy. Carriers aren't built today to fire oil. There is a reason for that.
The same reason that we don't really use mounted cavalry today.... it is outdated.
Some US special forces have used horses in the Middle East recently, but they don't carry pikes and spears... outdated.
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: Zaphod58
I really don't see where bringing a CV back, that's been sitting in mothballs for 20ish years is going to improve availability. They're going to blow half their budget just trying to get her back to sea.
And why an oil fired carrier?
Maybe we could have the Army get a division of mounted cavalry with pikes and sabers activated in case we have a war with Mexico.
An inept analogy. The big carriers and subs are all nukes. Everything else is oil fired today. In large ships the engineering plants themselves work the same way they did in the late 1800's. They're all steam-powered. What heats the steam is the only difference. The nukes' advantage is simply a long time between visits to the gas station.
You didn't cover gas turbine technology. They burn liquid fuel, but it is aircraft fuel, not fuel oil. They are used because they can achieve propulsion from a cold iron condition very quickly because the engines do not need to create steam to spin the turbines, the combustion gases do that.
I have served in the Navy. Carriers aren't built today to fire oil. There is a reason for that.
The same reason that we don't really use mounted cavalry today.... it is outdated.
Some US special forces have used horses in the Middle East recently, but they don't carry pikes and spears... outdated.
It's still an inept analogy. You're worried about the fuel and I say that's the least of anyone's worries. It still makes the ship go and has nothing whatsoever to do with sabers and horses. It can still launch F-18's and it can go nearly as fast as a CVN. As a practical matter all you need is a ship on station, no matter what fuel it uses to get there. Besides which, that is not what I think should happen. I think they ought to save the Nimitz. Thank you for your service. I was also in the USN, an MM Nuke.
originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: butcherguy
Which boat?
originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: FredT
While this thread is about the amount of active and inactive carriers, etc., it is therefore about outdated means of war, circa WWII.
WWIII, the full monte, will be decidedly a different affair, missiles one way or another for about any contingency worthy of touching off a Tomahawk. Why do we need carriers when everybody and their buddy has missiles that can both do pinpoint land targets and even, glub, carriers?