It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


uss new york

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2002 @ 09:45 PM
maybe they'll use this ship to take out terriosts

posted on Dec, 28 2002 @ 10:08 PM
i heard about this the other day. and i do say it's a much finer use for the steel than that company in Georgia (i think that's where they are) that made them coins or plaques.

posted on Dec, 28 2002 @ 10:09 PM
I think it is a fitting tribute for the towers they need to inscribe the names of the people somewhere on the ship.

posted on Dec, 28 2002 @ 11:10 PM
This does seem to be a fine gesture on behalf of those who were lost and their near and dear ones. Apparently, it took some doing and breached the usual rules of warship nomenclature: it's New York State, I guess, and this sort of name has, I believe, moved from its original home in battleships to submarines.
I would hope that there were no dirty deeds attached -money to Northrop Grumman and the like -but I would also hope that it isn't dispatched to any sort of combat zone. I'm reminded of Hitler's decision to rename one of his "pocket battleships" since the sinking of a vessel named "Germany" (i.e. Deutschland) might have a catastrophic propaganda effect.
I'd hate to think of a "New York" being sunk or badly damaged.

posted on Dec, 29 2002 @ 08:18 PM
well its and amphibious ship so does that decrease the risk of being sunk??

posted on Dec, 29 2002 @ 10:33 PM
I hope it does decrease the risk, falcon; but if there are landings on beaches, I guess the ship could be very much at risk: losses of amphibious craft were quite high (despite total Allied air supremacy) in both the Asian and European theatres of W.W.II.
We can but hope that, by the time the New York is commissioned and seaworthy, the world will be a more peaceful place.

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 10:57 AM
but i read a book on the USMC last week by tom clancy and he said what makes todays amphib ships better is that the landing craft can go farther therefore the mother ship doesn;t hafta go as close to the beach hence probably decreasing the risk

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 11:13 AM
The USMC in this day and age are able to lay down massive amounts of precision guided firepower.
Before the amphibs are even in range of a hostile coast, several things would already have happened :

  • A preliminary wave of long range guided weapons would be used to elimninate fixed command and communictions targets etc.
  • Airpower ( A-6's, F-14 and F-18's ) from the carriers would have been sent in to hunt out SAMS and AAA. After that they would pound any shore defences to a depth of several km at least.
  • Marine harriers and Attack helicopters would then supress any surviving defences, such as artillery or other heavy units.
  • If conditions are favourable then surface combatants may use their heavy guns for shore bombardment.

This doesn't include the massive contribtion the US Airforce is able to provide.

After all this the amphibs would launch heli-borne marines and Amtraks to assault the surviving enemy forces.

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 11:18 AM
link /ts_nm/life_tradecenter_dc_2

[Edited on 30-12-2002 by ultra_phoenix]

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 01:30 PM
I have always been fascinated with amphibious assault ships. Take a look at the USS Belleau Wood or the Peleiu. They look like aircraft carriers and are probably bigger than some other nations carriers. I think they're a force all of their own being they carry attack jets and helicopters. The STOVL JSF's would fit nicely on these ships in the future and make them that much more capable. Estragon raises a good point - will this ship be a target, USS Cole comes to mind.

Heck, they should take this scrap and make cruise missiles, daisy cutters, JDAMS, and the like.

[Edited on 30-12-2002 by Bob88]


log in