Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Aircraft Carriers

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan


dude a nimitz class would rip this thing a new asshole

[Edited on 3-28-2004 by KrazyIvan]


Please no bashing or childish remarks.

Out,
Russian




posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
krazzy ivan can i point out a wee itty bitty fact u say that a nimitz class ship can as you so delacatly put it "rip this thing a new asshole" but please exsplain to me if a nimitz class is so good then why did 1 thats right uno, une , one not two but 1 type 23 frigate sail up to USS enterprize a nimitz class ship if i am not correct(please correct if wrong) unchallanged and blow it up in war games and sail home unchallanged by her or her escorts.
as we brits put it "stitch that jimmy"


LOL! That's the way, show those upstart yanks who still rules the waves, eh? True Brit!


On a serious note, this is quite typical of US Navy carrier battle groups. During exercises, they have a habit of suddenly discovering that there are one or two Russian attack submarines in their midst watching the proceedings. You don't have to have the world's stealthiest submarines when your enemy's anti-sub nets are full of holes.

And if you REALLY want to take out a carrier, just target an ICBM at its general location. Deposit 10x 300 kilotonne nuclear warheads. Remove 1 flag representing US carrier battle group from situation map. Repeat. Or , if you're feeling a little anti-nuclear, tell sub skipper to sink carrier with ye olde torpedoes.

It's not for nothing that the US Navy always played with "never nuke carrier" rules in wargames. Otherwise they lost every time.

Carriers: great for peacekeeping, force projection. Bad for all-out modern war. Unless crewed by Brits.

[Edited on 29-3-2004 by Lampyridae]



posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
INVINCIBLE CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, UNITED KINGDOM


It used almost no or no missiles. It looks like the Invincible is a moderity(so) protect by both aircrafts and guns.



GUNS

HMS Ark Royal is armed with three Mark 15 Phalanx close-in weapon systems (CIWS) from Raytheon and General Dynamics. Each Phalanx CIWS has one 20mm M61A1 Vulcan Gatling-principle gun which fires 3,000 rounds/min at a range of 1.5km.

HMS Invincible and Illustrious each have three Thales Nederland (formerly Signaal) Goalkeeper CIWS. Goalkeeper's Gatling principle 30mm gun provides a maximum firing rate of 4,200 rounds/min with a range of 1,500m.

All three carriers are also equipped with two GAM-B01 20mm guns from Oerlikon-Contraves and BAE SYSTEMS, which have a maximum range of 2km and firing rate of 1,000 rounds/min.





GARIBALDI AIRCRAFT CARRIER, ITALY

The Italian carrier is protect pretty good with missile and guns because it can carry only a small amount of aircrafts(16).
Also the Italian carrier has torpedos on it for ASW.

MISSILES
The ship's long-range surface-to-surface missile system, the MBDA (formerly Alenia) Otomat, is installed on the gun decks at the stern of the ship, two launchers on the port and two on the starboard side. The missile has active radar homing, is armed with a 210kg warhead and has a range of 120km.
The MBDA Albatros surface-to-air missile system provides short-range point defence. The Albatros eight-cell launchers are installed on the roof decks at the forward and stern end of the main island. The system uses the Aspide missile. Aspide has a semi-active radar seeker and a range of 14km. Forty-eight Aspide missiles are carried. Fire control for the Albatros is provided by three AESN NA 30 radar/electro-optical directors, which include infrared camera and laser rangefinder as well as the Alenia RTN 30X fire control radar.
GUNS
The ship is armed with three 40/70mm twin guns from OTOBreda. The guns have a firing rate of 300 rounds/min to an airborne target range of 4km and a surface target range of 12km. The guns weapon control system comprises three Alenia Marconi Systems NA 21 systems.
TORPEDOES
Two ILAS 3 triple tube torpedo launchers from WASS (Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subaqua) are fitted. The 324mm tubes are capable of firing the Honeywell Mark 46 or the A290 torpedo



CHARLES DE GAULLE NUCLEAR POWERED AIRCRAFT CARRIER, FRANCE

The Franch carrier is nuclear power like the nimitz which means it can go farther then the other carriers.
The carrier is protected by a good anti-air system because it can hold only 40 aircrafts.
What I dont see on this carrier is ASW weapons which it better have alot of ASW helicopters.

SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES
The SAAM (Surface Anti-Air Missile) system, developed by Eurosam (set up by MBDA and Thales), provides defence against hostile aircraft and anti-ship missiles. The system uses the Aster 15 surface-to-air missile and entered operational service in November 2002, with the first firing of the missile from the Charles de Gaulle. The Aster missile has a 13kg warhead and a range of 30km. The missile's guidance is inertial with data uplink and active radar terminal homing. For increased manoeuvrability in the terminal phase, the missile uses a 'PIF-PAF' direct thrust control system with gas jets. Two eight-cell Sylver vertical launch systems are installed on the starboard side forward of the bridge and two on the port side aft of the bridge. The system uses the Thales (formerlyThomson-CSF) Arabel radar, which is a multi-function three-dimensional radar with a range of 70km for a target area of 2m.
The ship has two six-cell Sadral launching systems for the MBDA (formerly Matra BAe Dynamics) Mistral anti-aircraft and anti-missile missile. Mistral has an infra-red seeker and a range of 4km.
GIAT 20F2 20MM GUNS
The ship is equipped with eight Giat 20F2 20mm guns, which fire 0.25kg shells at 720 rounds/min to a range of up to 8km.



ANDREA DORIA (NUM) AIRCRAFT CARRIER, ITALY

This Italian carrier is in prosses of being built. The carrier will be delivered in 2007.
This is another small carrier. It will carry 8 aircrafts or 12 helicopters.
It will have good missile system because of the small number of units it carries.

The ship's strongest features will be its high flexibility in operational terms, its capacity to carry out the functions of an aircraft carrier and the transport of wheeled and tracked vehicles.

On 22 November 2000, a contract was drawn up between Fincantieri and the Ministry of Naval Defence to supply an aircraft carrier vessel, better known as a "new major vessel", to the Italian Navy. The order is worth approximately Lira 1,750bn, of which 140bn has been set aside for the integrated logistic Support.
Building work on the new vessel which will be named the Andrea Doria, began at Fincantieri's shipyards in Riva Trigoso and Muggiano in July 2001 and the ship will be delivered in 2007


AIRCRAFT CARRIER FUNCTION

In order to carry out these functions, the vessel will be equipped with a flight deck suitable both for operations with helicopters and with short-launch, vertical take-off fighter planes and a hangar/garage of approximately 2,500m. In this way the ship will also have an amphibious capacity through rapid transport via helicopter even at considerable distances from the landing force. The ship could support eight VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) aircraft such as AV-8B Harrier or F-35 joint strike fighter VTOL variant, or 12 helicopters, such as the EH101, AB-212, NH 90 or SH-3D, or a mix of platforms.
In view of the long operating life foreseen for the vessel, the ship was conceived to be able to accommodate new generation aircraft. For the purposes of moving aircraft and vehicles embarked, two elevators will be installed for aircraft and there will be two access ramps to move vehicles from the quayside to the hangar/garage.
Further features of the ship will be a hospital facility with three operating rooms, wards for hospitalised patients, X ray and CT equipment, a dentist's surgery and a laboratory.
The carrier will be armed with the Eurosam (jointly owned by MBDA and Thales) SAAM/IT missile system which fires Aster 15 missiles from the Sylver eight-cell vertical launch system. The Aster 15 missile has a 13kg warhead and a range of 30km. The missiles guidance is inertial with data uplink and active radar terminal homing. For increased manoeuvrability in the terminal phase, the missile uses a 'PIF-PAF' direct thrust control system with gas jets. Primary sensor for the SAAM/IT is the AMS Empar G-band multi-function phased array radar, which provides simultaneous surveillance, tracking and weapons control. First ship-launched missile firing of the SAAM/IT system took place in December 2002.
The vessel will be equipped with two Oto Melara 76mm Super Rapid guns and three 25mm anti-aircraft guns.




PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS AIRCRAFT CARRIER, SPAIN

THe Spanish carrier is also like othe European carriers. It is small and can take a small amount of units.
This carrier can take 12 aircrafts and 12 helicopters.

CARRIER AIRCRAFT
The ship supports up to twelve AV-8B Harrier II Plus and Harrier II (being upgraded to Harrier II Plus configuration) aircraft. The Harriers are armed with AIM-9L Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles and AGM-65E Maverick air-to-ground missiles, in addition to GAU-12U cannon. The carrier also has facilities to support up to twelve helicopters, usually six Sikorsky Sea King SH-3H, four Agusta AB-212 and two Sikorsky SH-3 AEW helicopters.
The ship normally supports a maximum of 29 fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft with up to twelve on deck and 13 aircraft in the hangar. In an emergency a maximum of 17 aircraft can be stored in the 2,300m hangar. The hangar deck is accessed by two flight deck lifts. The 5,100m flight deck is 176m in length and includes a 12 ski jump 46.5m in length.
WEAPON SYSTEMS
The ship has four FABA Meroka Mod 2B close-in weapon systems (CIWS), with twelve-barrelled Oerlikon L120 20mm guns. The guns have a rate of fire of 1,440 rounds/min and a range of up to 2,000m. They are installed two on the stern deck and one each on the port and starboard side of the flight deck. The Meroka fire control system has tracking radar and an Indra (formerly ENOSA) thermal imager.
A Mk 13 Mod 4 eight-cell launcher for the Harpoon anti-ship missile is fitted.
The ship's combat data system is the Tritan Digital Command and Control System.







www.naval-technology.com...
www.naval-technology.com...
www.naval-technology.com...
www.naval-technology.com...
www.naval-technology.com...

Out,
Russian



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Corsair/Sea Archer

www.globalsecurity.org...
According to some reports, Defense Secretary Rumsfelds spring 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review considered recommending that the Navy stop building large-deck Nimitz-class carriers in favor of smaller carriers that could be deployed in the coastal waters. This new class of "pocket" aircraft carriers, designated the Corsair, is envisioned as a vessel of only 6,000 tons displacement, with a crew of as few as 20 sailors. The Corsair might carry half a dozen of the Vertical Take-Off variant of the Joint Strike Fighter being developed for the Marine Corps. Alternatvely, the Corsairs might employ Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles [UCAVs]. Vessels like the Corsair might be built for several hundred million dollars, compared with the $4 billion construction cost of a Nimitz carrier. The Corsair could allow the Navy to operate in coastal waters, within range of shore-base anti-shipping cruise missiles, according to proponents of the concept. It could also allow the Navy to provide air cover for smaller post-Cold War operations, such as the peacekeeping missions in Haiti or East Timor, that either divert a Nimitz-class carrier or are conducted without air support.

The CVX design effort in the late 1990s onsidered a variety of alternative mid-sized carrier designs, including derivatives with alternative flight decks, fossil-fuel propulsion, low signature monohulls, and low signature catamaran.


BTW Great thread



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Aircraft carriers are very vulnerable yet powerfull. IMO they aren't as valuable in a full blow war between 2 strong nations. As was stated, nukes wipe them out. This is why when I was so shocked to find out that during US war games, there was a "no nuking CBG's." This makes no sense as it would be the first thing an enemy would do if they had them.

Carriers are better served as forward bases in conflicts such as in the middle east. Against a strong oponent, I think it's like putting all your eggs in 1 basket. They are expensive, have lots of planes/men, and can be destroyed by a nuke.

One thing I would like to add to the defenses are the new lasers being made by the US. A solid state laser powered by a nuke reactor might prove to make the nuke cruise missle obsolete.

*SMACK*

Are you kidding me? aircraft carriers are a vital part to winning a naval war, they are what won the pacific war against Japan.

Besides aircrfat carriers when armed right, can intercept nukes, IT IS WHY WE PLACE THEM NEAR ENEMY LAUNCHING POSITIONS.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Besides aircrfat carriers when armed right, can intercept nukes, IT IS WHY WE PLACE THEM NEAR ENEMY LAUNCHING POSITIONS.

What? Excuse me? What exactly do they use to shoot them down, SeaSparrow?

I agree that carriers are valuable. Of all the ones out there, the US Nimitz class is by far the best. Nothing out there can touch it. If it could, whatever launched it wouldn't last very long.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Popeye
Corsair/Sea Archer

www.globalsecurity.org...
According to some reports, Defense Secretary Rumsfelds spring 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review considered recommending that the Navy stop building large-deck Nimitz-class carriers in favor of smaller carriers that could be deployed in the coastal waters. This new class of "pocket" aircraft carriers, designated the Corsair, is envisioned as a vessel of only 6,000 tons displacement, with a crew of as few as 20 sailors. The Corsair might carry half a dozen of the Vertical Take-Off variant of the Joint Strike Fighter being developed for the Marine Corps. Alternatvely, the Corsairs might employ Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles [UCAVs]. Vessels like the Corsair might be built for several hundred million dollars, compared with the $4 billion construction cost of a Nimitz carrier. The Corsair could allow the Navy to operate in coastal waters, within range of shore-base anti-shipping cruise missiles, according to proponents of the concept. It could also allow the Navy to provide air cover for smaller post-Cold War operations, such as the peacekeeping missions in Haiti or East Timor, that either divert a Nimitz-class carrier or are conducted without air support.

The CVX design effort in the late 1990s onsidered a variety of alternative mid-sized carrier designs, including derivatives with alternative flight decks, fossil-fuel propulsion, low signature monohulls, and low signature catamaran.


BTW Great thread


Thanks for the info.

Yes it would be better to have small carriers for the small operations.

First of all it is cheaper to maintain and move.

Also As it said in the article that they can move in closer to shore.

Out,
Russian



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
cool im afraid ur wrong aboiut nothing touching it and not survivng long if it did beacause a submarine could kill it and get away i refer you to my post earlier about the frigate incident



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Newport News Shipbuilding (USA) announced that the U. S. Navy has awarded the company a contract valued at approximately $161 million for research and design development engineering services in support of the future aircraft carrier program, CVNX. Work performed under the contract will include research and development tasks such as systems specifications, design weight estimates, preliminary logistics data, electromagnetic aircraft launching system design integration and preliminary construction planning.

Newport News Shipbuilding is currently performing design work and preliminary construction for the transition ship to the new class of carriers, CVN-77. It is scheduled for delivery in 2008. Construction of the first ship of the new class of carriers, CVNX-1, is scheduled to begin in 2006 with the second ship, several years thereafter.

CVNX ships will be a new 21st-century generation of aircraft carriers. Starting with CVN -77 and culminating with CVNX-2, a host of technological improvements will be introduced to lower operating costs and improve combat capabilities.

A redesigned propulsion plant will afford a more efficient and powerful electrical distribution system that will support the replacement of high maintenance cost steam systems with electrical auxiliaries. A new electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) will replace the steam-driven catapults and significantly lower maintenance and high costs incurred on current carriers.Smart sensors will assist in further reducing Navy watch standing requirements and in automating damage control functions such as detecting fire and flooding situations. Flight deck redesign and a transition to an electromagnetic aircraft recovery system (EARS) will reduce crew workload, enhance safety and reduce the costs of operating and maintaining a carrier throughout its 50-year life.




This is some info on the small future USA carriers.

Out,
Russian



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   
CVNX, the centerpiece of the Navy's next generation carrier Fleet, will be a large-deck, nuclear-powered ship. This next generation aircraft carrier will be achieved at an affordable, evolutionary pace beginning with CVN 77. CVN 77 will have a newly designed and integrated combat system that eliminates rotating antennas. CVNX 1 will incorporate this new CVN 77 integrated combat system, and will add both a new nuclear propulsion plant and a new electrical power and distribution system. The new nuclear propulsion plant will provide immediate warfighting enhancements, immediate life cycle cost reductions, and will enable future warfighting enhancements and further life cycle cost reductions. Subsequent carriers will feature additional new technologies including an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS), an Electromagnetic Aircraft Recovery System (EARS), improved crew habitability, survivability improvements, performance improvements, and new functional arrangements and distributed systems.

For the rest of the long article click on the link below.
www.globalsecurity.org...













For the times when the CVXs will Ordered, Commissioned, and Decommissioned click on the link below.
www.globalsecurity.org...


By early 2003 the CVNX (aircraft carrier, nuclear, experimental) program had been restructured to place as much technology as possible on the lead ship, now called the CVN-21. New propulsion plant, electric catapult, reduced manning, improved survivability and more efficient flight operations are the keys to this new carrier, planned to be available in the 2011 period.

CVN 77, which will replace USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) in 2008, is scheduled to begin construction in 2001. CVNX 1, which will replace USS Enterprise (CVN 65) in 2013, is scheduled to begin construction in 2006. In fiscal year 1998, CVN 77 initiated the design process necessary to accomplish the technological changes planned for CVNX. The ultimate result of these design efforts will be a carrier class that has not only substantially lower life cycle costs, but also a significantly improved warfighting capability to successfully accomplish a wide range of future missions in what is rapidly becoming an increasingly uncertain world.

CVNX-2 will be the culmination of the evolutionary carrier design program started with CVN-76. Key features of CVNX-2 will include an electromagnetic aircraft launching system that will have reduced manpower and maintenance as well as lower wind over deck requirements for aircraft launch and recovery. This system will also extend aircraft life, as peak loads on the airframe will be reduced.


For a slide show of the USA carriers and new CVNX carriers click on the link below.
www.fas.org...


Out,
Russian






[Edited on 30-3-2004 by Russian]



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
cool im afraid ur wrong aboiut nothing touching it and not survivng long if it did beacause a submarine could kill it and get away i refer you to my post earlier about the frigate incident


Okay I am afraid that you are wrong. Something may acutally be able to hit it, but I guarntee that the rest of the Battle Group will get it.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Cool Hand, with a conventional attck yes i agree. You may get the carrier but a decent battle group would probably get you.

As mentioned by me a Novel witten on this exact topic has a diesel submarine, using a nuclear armed torpedo to hit and destroy a Nimitz class carrier. Most of the battle group is also damaged or incapacitated in some way. The submarine gets away.

This form of attack as mentioned in other posts has never been allowed in exercises as its a known no win for a CBG. Its why the US Navy practised so often in simulated mass air raids by soviet long range bombers. One nuclear cruise missile could ruin their day. Modern cruise missile could probably overwhelm a CBG.

Also, and this is only guessing but a well driven, diesel class sub could probably get close enough to sink/damage a carrier and quietly get away. Especially in moderate sea conditions. A quiet diesel is almost impossible to find. Its why they are used by many nations as intel gathering units and for insertng spec forces.

The chance of a CBG getting involved in a conflict with this threat is low these days. In current conflicts, the CBG is a good tool for force application when land bases are not avaliable. As long as the enemy does not have nuclear technology, cruise missiles or diesel subs a CBG is probably safe.

Terrorism, well thats another tale all together.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 06:25 AM
link   
As mentioned by me a Novel witten on this exact topic has a diesel submarine, using a nuclear armed torpedo to hit and destroy a Nimitz class carrier. Most of the battle group is also damaged or incapacitated in some way. The submarine gets away.

In a real world scenario that will not happen. As soon as you get transients (torpedo launch sounds) you will have an exact postion to begin your search. Assuming that you can get to it quick enough, then you will kill the sub.

This form of attack as mentioned in other posts has never been allowed in exercises as its a known no win for a CBG. Its why the US Navy practised so often in simulated mass air raids by soviet long range bombers. One nuclear cruise missile could ruin their day. Modern cruise missile could probably overwhelm a CBG.

Actually it has been, I have been there when it does happen.

Also, and this is only guessing but a well driven, diesel class sub could probably get close enough to sink/damage a carrier and quietly get away. Especially in moderate sea conditions. A quiet diesel is almost impossible to find. Its why they are used by many nations as intel gathering units and for insertng spec forces.

A diesel is not impossible to find. It is hard, but if you know what you are doing then you can get him.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 06:47 AM
link   
will they replace the goalkeeper with a laser because they will have enough power to bring it on the vessel.
it will have more range and can fire faster amount of time if done good. any one has an anwser



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
u guys still use the goal keeper?
and im afriad cool hand ur wrong iv read that book too and infact it would work
diesel subs are silent under 8 knots
and besides u think the US navy is going too be constantly on general quarters?
also i dont see the need to have your CBG'S running around playing police men they should only be called in if like u know the smaller ships get word of a bigger threat.
cause they are also like sitting targets for missiles.
just asking whats the armorments on a nimitz calss im not asking specs just a short list



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Devil, in responces to your last post the Nimitz never had Goalkeeper, but the Phalanx..which is gradually being phased out and replaced by RAM. The book demonstrated a senario that COULD happen..not would. Diesel subs are quiet suckers..but not undetectable..and they have little endurnce..so unless the CBG sails almost overtop of them they are in trouble. The CBG isn;t on GQ all the time and a sneak attack during peacetime has a much greater chance of sucess..but even then a sensor watch is being kept.

You wanted the Armements of the Nimitz class carrier and leaving aside the air group..which is its major weapon system, the Nimitz carriers 3 Sea Sparrow 8 cell lauinchers and 4 (I think)
Phalanx CIWS systems. It also has at least three surface escorts, with at least two Ageis control systems and hundreds of air defence missles. Oh and a 688 class attack sub..which would eat most deisel boats for lunch.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Popeye
Corsair/Sea Archer

www.globalsecurity.org...
According to some reports, Defense Secretary Rumsfelds spring 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review considered recommending that the Navy stop building large-deck Nimitz-class carriers in favor of smaller carriers that could be deployed in the coastal waters. This new class of "pocket" aircraft carriers, designated the Corsair, is envisioned as a vessel of only 6,000 tons displacement, with a crew of as few as 20 sailors. The Corsair might carry half a dozen of the Vertical Take-Off variant of the Joint Strike Fighter being developed for the Marine Corps. Alternatvely, the Corsairs might employ Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles [UCAVs]. Vessels like the Corsair might be built for several hundred million dollars, compared with the $4 billion construction cost of a Nimitz carrier. The Corsair could allow the Navy to operate in coastal waters, within range of shore-base anti-shipping cruise missiles, according to proponents of the concept. It could also allow the Navy to provide air cover for smaller post-Cold War operations, such as the peacekeeping missions in Haiti or East Timor, that either divert a Nimitz-class carrier or are conducted without air support.

The CVX design effort in the late 1990s onsidered a variety of alternative mid-sized carrier designs, including derivatives with alternative flight decks, fossil-fuel propulsion, low signature monohulls, and low signature catamaran.


BTW Great thread


The idea of smaller carriers is sketchy. The smaller the carrier, the less ordnance and aviation fuel it can carry. Not to mention less aircraft. It always pays to have a lot of aircraft.



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   
sweat i can understand y u think a biggr carrier is better but if u think a smaller carrier would be better for the us military because it could provide you with multiple bases to attack from and would allow your forces more ........how do u put it ...........freedom to move?
ya dig?
and cool i think it would get away but really depends



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 01:42 AM
link   
For the sake of the debate that started if Nimitiz can be sunk by a sub i found some info that I wish will help you people.

Nuclear submarines are designed to operate in "blue water," out in the open ocean. They can run fast and deep, using thermal layers and other characteristics of deep water to disguise their movements and mask their noise.

In shallow water, a nuclear submarine often is longer than the water is deep, severely restricting its maneuverability. Like a large whale in the surf, it can fall victim to a swarm of smaller, more maneuverable subs, unable to detect and outmaneuver them, unable to deploy its weapons effectively.

While the new Virginia class is designed to operate closer to shore, especially for delivery of Special Forces and other tactical in-shore options, these operations are short lived, and the sub quickly returns to deeper, safer water.

A nuclear sub uses a compact nuclear reactor to generate steam to drive a turbine to turn the propeller. Except for modern adaptations, this differs little from old coal driven turbines. They are much quieter now, but they still make a lot of noise. Diesel submarines use reciprocating engines on the surface and while snorkeling, and battery driven electric motors while submerged. The first is noisy, the latter extremely quiet.



Out,
Russian



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   
hey just wonderin does the US use desiels ?
i can understand british using them but i dont know about the US
whats the british version by the way?
and cool i was just thrown away by marks statement (dont worry mark i didnt know if the US cariers had goal keepers or not)





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join