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.

 

Navy's newest warships top out at more than 50 mph

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   

BATH, Maine – The Navy's need for speed is being answered by a pair of warships that have reached freeway speeds during testing at sea.Independence, a 418-foot warship built in Alabama, boasts a top speed in excess of 45 knots, or about 52 mph, and sustained 44 knots for four hours during builder trials that wrapped up this month off the Gulf Coast. The 378-foot Freedom, a ship built in Wisconsin by a competing defense contractor, has put up similar numbers.

Both versions of the Littoral Combat Ship use powerful diesel engines, as well as gas turbines for extra speed. They use steerable waterjets instead of propellers and rudders and have shallower drafts than conventional warships, letting them zoom close to shore.






Cool ship, I love the tri hull design as well I din't see this here so I posted, BTW photos are U.S Navy and the link to the story is news.yahoo.com...




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
It's a ferry.

No, seriously ... the hull design is based on this Fred Olsen ferry.



The hull's all aluminium as is the superstructure. Aluminium is not great fun in a shipfire. Here's USS Belknap following a collision which caused a fire ... steel hull, aluminium superstructure ...



And here's HMS Ardent ablaze in the Falkland's war ... same aluminium superstructure.



The USN regards the fire risk to USS Independence as so severe that its sailors are even banned from smoking on board.

I have real problems with that new greyhound of yours, it might be fast, it might look the part. But it's a "one hit ship".



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Ulala
 


Boy I'd hate to get caught in a fire like that aboard, I wonder if they compensated for this weakness with any type of advanced armor or something?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Not that I can confirm anything about the origin of the first water jet
propulsion patents but I think through all my readings on conspiracies
that John Jacob Astor may have been involved with such a scheme.
Perhaps would have built the first such boat.
Nikola Tesla may have been involved as well.



Google water jet astor tesla

Only 5,000 hits, guess I was right.
Well only the first looks close.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I saw a thing on a news show about the new boats... they ride so shallow and so rough everyone aboard takes sea sickness pills... the big danger is at speed a chop can send half your crew flying



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by on_yur_6
 


scotty, i need those inertial dampers online, now!



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


About time! I still remember reading Popular Mechanics article about US Navy researching trimaran hull designs for their new vessels. I believe the benefits using trimaran hulls are worth the money. Can't wait to see more navy vessels use this hull. Of course, I would also love to see a submersible fleet (carriers, destroyers, etc.) with stealth and trimaran hulls. But that won't be in our lifetime.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
The coolest part about the next gen ships is the stuff they are keeping hush hush about, the segregated internal floating command compartments that are are literally isolated from the rest of the ship and are on dampers, and the mini rail gun systems. And some mysterious new weapons system that congeals a large amount of water temporarily in order to stop incoming ordinance.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure that the Royal Navy also had a triple hull battle ship.
The name eludes me but I remember seeing it sat in the water outside the ship yard when the Ship yard was in my city.

Edit, Just found on another thread here on ATS that the Royal navy's version has been scrapped...



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Ah found it, HMS TRITON

ooooh pic of triton



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Retikx
 


Any follow up on these things or links? The congealed water sounds cool but this is the first I've ever heard of this but now I'm interested



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I'm a former crew member of the Belknap, LOL. Believe it or not, they rebuilt the ship and it went on to become a flag ship stationed out of Gaeta, Italy.


I have real problems with that new greyhound of yours, it might be fast, it might look the part. But it's a "one hit ship".


To be honest, all modern Navy vessels are "one hit" ships. None of them have a hull that will stop anything, they rely entirely on their defensive systems to prevent anything from getting through to their hulls or superstructure.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


They must be very confident in the defense capabilities of these (and like) vessels, I would imagine at least a modest level of hull protection am I wrong?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


They're supremely confident their systems can stop any weapon from getting through their defensive nets. Does it always work? Not in the case of the USS Cole, which was nearly sunk by the Iraqi in the 1980's. But since then newer Aegis systems track all threats not to just their own ships but to all the ships in their group, allowing them to work as a unified system to stop incoming threats. AFAIK all modern Navy ships have eliminated armor in their hull designs.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


They're supremely confident their systems can stop any weapon from getting through their defensive nets. Does it always work? Not in the case of the USS Cole, which was nearly sunk by the Iraqi in the 1980's. But since then newer Aegis systems track all threats not to just their own ships but to all the ships in their group, allowing them to work as a unified system to stop incoming threats. AFAIK all modern Navy ships have eliminated armor in their hull designs.


It was the USS Stark not the Cole that took the Exorcite in the side from the Iraqi jet. The Aegis system was off at the time as it was a new system that had some bugs. Today that would not happen as Aegis protects the whole fleet.

Whoever said this ship rides rough needs to understand that this is made for shallow waters. I bet it rides in pretty rough seas just fine as long as they are not trying to do 40 knots in 40ft seas. This is no Boston Whaler, Decades of ship design went into these new ships.

P.S. There are Boats and then there are targets. Subs are Boats the rest are targets.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
The hull must be considerably lighter than that of a conventional warship.

Won't there be loading/ballasting issues with a hull so lightweight ? Almost imagine that if you load 6 humvees on board then land a helicopter the ship would rise a few degrees at the bow ... how do they get around that one ?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
The BIG problem with aluminum superstructure and a steel hull or aluminium ship with steel equipment on board is corrosion.

Any place that aluminum touches steel and you add salt water you get Galvanic corrosion.

The minesweep I served on had a wooden hull but we had a lot of non magnetic stainless steel and aluminum equipment and had a lot of problems with where even the stainless steel and aluminum touched each other.
any place they touched and there was salt the aluminum would turn to white powder.

With a aluminum superstructure and a steel hull this is a major problem and there is no real way to stop it completely.
en.wikipedia.org...

Aluminum superstructure USN ships have been suffering cracking problems since the 1950’s.


[edit on 23-10-2009 by ANNED]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
They have been going 50 knots for awhile, top speeds are always classified.

How fast do you think the USS Enterprise goes with 8 (yes that is 8) reactors when all others have only 2..



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegear
They have been going 50 knots for awhile, top speeds are always classified.

How fast do you think the USS Enterprise goes with 8 (yes that is 8) reactors when all others have only 2..



Because the Enterprise has inefficient reactors compared to the Nimitz class.

Moreover if you think a main battle carrier can go faster than 40 knots you really don't know what you are talking about.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Not that I can confirm anything about the origin of the first water jet
propulsion patents


Jetboat Design

First water jet unit was created in New Zealand by Bill Hamiliton in 1954. As most of our rivers are shallow we needed a boat that could navigate these rivers. So the technology has been around for many years here in NZ.

Sir Charles William Hamilton


When he took one of his early demonstration jet boats to the US, the media scoffed when he said he planned to take it up the Colorado River (U.S.), but in 1960 a Hamilton jet became the first boat to travel up through the Grand Canyon. The critics were silenced further when the boat also went down river through the canyon.



Jetsprinting as an organised sport originated in New Zealand in 1981, and events were originally held in the same natural braided rivers that had inspired Sir William Hamilton to develop the jetboat, but when the sport was introduced to Australia in the mid-1980s permanent artificial courses were used—and this is now the norm even in New Zealand.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join