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.

 

This is NOT the Aircraft Carrier you are looking for...

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by teachtaire
 


Yes, but this time they almost have to. It will let them save a bunch of weight on both classes (Ford and Nimitz), with being able to remove the steam piping, the plant, and possibly one desalination plant (the one used for the catapult). That's a lot of room freed up that they can use.




posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


the unimaginative would say for fuel or ammo.

I'm guessing a small nuclear reactor.

That is what the catapults were designed to run on, extra juice from a nuclear reactor.

That way they can put lazorz on it too.

*EDIT* and just blowing it up will become much more of an issue for the Chinese and Koreans. Sinking diesel is one thing, sinking a reactor right off your coast is a horse of a different color.
edit on 7-8-2013 by teachtaire because: LOL



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by teachtaire
 


Most likely fuel. Crew size will be reduced due to automation increases. More fuel for the air wing means less time spent in UNREP for fuel. And if they add EMALS, they can design a bigger COD to carry more cargo out to the ship.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by teachtaire
 


Most likely fuel. Crew size will be reduced due to automation increases. More fuel for the air wing means less time spent in UNREP for fuel. And if they add EMALS, they can design a bigger COD to carry more cargo out to the ship.


That is certainly more believable.

I just have an image in my head of a tanker full of fuel floating along side the platform with a hose feeding the "destroyer" juice.

Fantasy vs reality ):



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by teachtaire
 







posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


AWESOME!

Oh COOL I was just using my experience from video games along with a bit of imagination ROFL.

I guess you learn something new every day!



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by teachtaire
 


Occasionally if they have to transfer a crew member to the other ship (missed liberty call, or something of the sort) they put them in a seat attached to a rope they shoot over, and send him to the other ship across the gap.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by teachtaire
 


Oh there's a good bit that's out there that doesn't have back doors for anyone. Some of the black world stuff would water your eyes if it came out into the light. Stuff that some of the contractors working on it don't even have the complete picture for.


Doubtlessly! I However meant that the programs have been infiltrated. As in the Commies put the back doors in themselves.

*EDIT* Thanks for being patient and explaining everything, sorry everyone keeps making you repeat yourself

edit on 8-8-2013 by teachtaire because: my bad



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by teachtaire
 


Occasionally if they have to transfer a crew member to the other ship (missed liberty call, or something of the sort) they put them in a seat attached to a rope they shoot over, and send him to the other ship across the gap.
gotta pull the BS flag on this one...sorry but pics or...actually recent pics or it doesn't happen, we all know they did some crazy crap back in the day..
edit on 8-8-2013 by Thunderheart because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 





Still in use today, but as I said, it doesn't happen often.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Thunderheart
 





Still in use today, but as I said, it doesn't happen often.

dadgum, I can't access that link at work...sure wish there was a way that we could upload pictures here at ATS so that we could use them in threads...



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


Yeah wouldn't that be nice. I also wish people would quit trying to be smartasses all the time.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

I also wish people would quit trying to be smartasses all the time.


I couldn't agree more, zaphod. It'd be great too if people had the imagination to consider things a few years down the line too, before they get too waspish in their criticism.

For all of you who rubbish WW2 carriers or who didn't take kindly to my earlier comparisons, let's consider for the sake of argument one old redoubtable, HMS Hermes. Fair enough, she didn't quite make WW2 although she was laid down in 1944 and her basic nuts & bolts were to the standard of that day. There was nothing special about her construction, just a fairly standard aircraft carrier although she was modded extensively during construction and differed significantly from the others of her class (Centaur class).

And this is what I mean about not getting het up about displacement, these British carriers might have been small but after the war they were passed on to many countries including Canada, Australia, France, the Netherlands, Brazil, Argentina etc , where many served into the 1960's and beyond.

HMS Hermes actually still serves today, hard to believe I know, she was sold to India after la guerre des Malouines in the South Atlantic in 1982, she's now known as INS Viraat.

And this is where she's interesting ... HMS Hermes displacement was within 1,000 tons of this new Japanese warship. 28,000 tons in fact. So very similar.

Let's have a look at quite how inadequate or otherwise HMS Hermes was.

The first obvious difference with this Jap ship is an angled flight deck. That's not to say one can't be retrofitted to the Japanese ship ... it could, but it's not something you can do in a couple of weeks, it would take a couple of years I'd guess. HMS Hermes here is also equipped with twin catapults & arrestor wires, also awkward and expensive to retrofit. She's also, Zaphod, equipped with a remarkably high number of fixed wing aircraft for such a comparatively little ship. These pictures are early 1960's.








Many of the aircraft here are Blackburn Buccaneers. It was thought HMS Hermes might eventually be upgraded to Royal Navy Phantoms but the politicians of the day decided against it. Quite how big a Phantom or Buccaneer is compared to an F-35B I'll leave to our resident aviation smartasses. But in her final years as a catobar carrier, she carried over 20 fixed wing aircraft, not counting helicopters. That's more than Britain's new 70,000 ton Queen Elizabeth class carriers will take in F-35B's (although the limit on that capacity is entirely financial).

Here's HMS Hermes as she is today, in service with the Indian Navy. Laid down in 1944 ... this is a remarkable old lady. I hope the campaign to return her to Britain as a permanent memorial is successful.





The point I'm making is this. How can you say ships of that size can't be used for the purpose of taking war to an enemy ? That's all the British designed Hermes for. How can people say that we can't compare WW2 carriers to current day ones ? There both lumps of steel which transverse the globe ... it's their aircraft which really matter, at the end of the day, the ship itself is merely the mobile hangar. And it's how you use those aircraft which is important, it's how your commander so positions his ship to take that war to his opponent.

With some quality mods, this Japanese warship could be able to launch fixed wing. The only thing which prevents that is the lack of political will. But now the ship has been built, now that people are used to the idea of Japan having aircraft carriers, well there might eventually be less resistance to the idea of a Japanese stovl carrier, even a retrofit cats & traps carrier ... or more likely a new class altogether.

Oh. I've embedded pictures. How very naughty.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


And what were those the Buccaneers were using on the deck? What was that word again? Oh yeah! Catapults! Show me where they are on the Izumo again.

So the Japanese are going to buy F-,35As, and do three impossible and fly them off the deck of a carrier with no catapults. Damn I can't wait to watch that! Think of all that money sinking to the bottom of the ocean. It'll be awesome!i



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


And what were those the Buccaneers were using on the deck? What was that word again? Oh yeah! Catapults! Show me where they are on the Izumo again.

So the Japanese are going to buy F-,35As, and do three impossible and fly them off the deck of a carrier with no catapults. Damn I can't wait to watch that! Think of all that money sinking to the bottom of the ocean. It'll be awesome!i
why do you so smugly assume they don't have hidden catapults below decks? have you boarded it?



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaphod, it's you I'd love to see catapulted off a flightdeck rather than that Buccaneer, we'll catapult you off for the crime of stating the blindingly obvious.

Ships are built, modified all the time. Hermes is a nice example.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 



Because that doesn't make sense. At all. What happens witwhen the mechanism to pull them up on deck fails? You're completely SOL and now have a bunch of utterly useless aircraft sitting around. That's more failure points that you have to worry about, as well as more maintenance and upkeep to deal with.

But let's say they did, exactly what planes are they going to fly off the deck? Specifically.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Thunderheart
 



Because that doesn't make sense. At all. What happens witwhen the mechanism to pull them up on deck fails? You're completely SOL and now have a bunch of utterly useless aircraft sitting around. That's more failure points that you have to worry about, as well as more maintenance and upkeep to deal with.

But let's say they did, exactly what planes are they going to fly off the deck? Specifically.
Now you're thinking like an American and not a Japanese



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


Go back and read my posts. I SAID I wouldn't be surprised to see this one get modified for a ski jump or EMALS later. But please, what planes are they going to use that they either have or have announced they're buying. Specifically.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


Go back and read my posts. I SAID I wouldn't be surprised to see this one get modified for a ski jump or EMALS later. But please, what planes are they going to use that they either have or have announced they're buying. Specifically.
because we know all of Japan's black projects????



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join