Domain: navsource.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to navsource.org.
Comments · 24
-
Re:IT upgrade for a machine that predates IT
Well, not exactly. But certainly if you proposed having a computer onboard in 1961, the first reaction would be: The B52 is big but it's not that big!
That wouldn't be the first reaction of anyone with a clue - by 1961 there were already small computers in production. (For use in missile guidance systems if nothing else. This picture shows the Polaris A-1 (1960) guidance on the right, the unit includes both the inertial assembly *and* the guidance computer.)
-
Overly complex, but working
Doing that in a marine sanctuary would have a significant environmental impact.
That's part of it. The other part is that the ship is on the edge of a slope into deeper water. There was real worry that she'd slide down the slope while passengers were still being evacuated. After that, the big worry was that she'd slide down the slope, break up, and leak bunker oil for years, producing a long-term oil spill. The first phase of salvage (by Smit, the Dutch salvage firm) was to drain the fuel tanks and stabilize the hulk. They did that with few problems.
Then it got political. If Smit had been given the contract to finish the job and get rid of the hulk, it would have been cut up and out of there by now. That was their proposal. But there would have been some medium-term damage to the environment in the area.
Hence the rather elaborate plan currently underway. The ship isn't just being pulled upright. That's not enough; it's full of water and wouldn't float. An underwater platform was built to support it, and it's being pulled onto that. Then it gets re-floated and towed away.
This is probably the most elaborate (in the overkill sense) marine salvage operation since the Army Corps of Engineers removed the wreck of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1911. They built an enormous temporary dam around the entire area. Then they pumped out the entire area around the ship. Then they cut up the wreckage and hauled it out. Then they let the water back in and dismantled the dam.
-
Re:Drones are Piloted
Navy friend told me about the "Armageddon Mode" on Aegis cruisers, that will pretty much take down everything in the sky without any human intervention:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/57s5.htmNeedless to say, the navy never really engages it. But it's there. Waiting. Patiently.
-
Re:Shit Happens
Sling-shot launching that Reliant Robin off an aircraft carrier damn nearly killed me!"
Somehow I'll bet that's been tried.
.
-
Re:OH, Goodie!
The US navy explored the Northwest Passage around fifty years ago. It didn't stay open for long. The British explored it in the 1850s. The oceans have several atmospheric oscillations with multi-decade periods, these result in alternating warming/cooling cycles. We're in the top of a warming cycle, but the phase has already shifted. This year the ice minimum was two weeks earlier than back in 2007, the arctic ice cap will start rebounding within a few years, and these passages will close up again.
And fifty years or so from now, they'll open up again. For a few years.
-
CVN-21
As any country who has seen a US supercarrier appear off their coast, it is the ultimate projection of force. Like nuclear weapons everyone wants one. The US Navy is not standing pat. With global strategic threats are increasing from Russia and China, the CVN-21 should up the ante considerably.
-
Naval gazing
Well, I hate naval gazing news
Yeah, staring at Naval vessels gets kind of boring unless you're really into that kind of thing.
Gazing at navels, on the other hand, I could do for hours.... -
Re:Who cares?
maybe 100 to 150 sailors onna boat, sport. Not hundreds or 1000's. How big do you think these things are?
I guess if you're used to the navies of Botswana or Tuvalu, then 100 to 150 would be about right... But here in the US, we typically have a bit bigger boats. Like the USS Nimitz, with 5600 or so people on board(http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/68.htm) . You know, big enough to carry a full aircraft wing, with over 4.5 acres of deck. -
Re:Good informative link
Based on the level of technology involved, I'm thinking this one.
-
The prudent mariner
The prudent mariner will not rely solely on any single aid to navigation.
Natianiel Bowditch (as best as I can recall the quote)
Among many other reasons for retaining fixed aids to navigation, the GPS system uses the WGS-84 datum. Many charts, in particular many harbor charts, still use local datam references.
Check with the former Commanding Officer and Navigator of the USS LaMoure County for their opinion regarding over-reliance on GPS positions with respect to local chart datums.
Visual and radar piloting have the benefit of being independent of the local coordinate system. Visual aids to navigation, in particular, may seem to be "obsolete" but they are wonderfully helpful in real world piloting situations.
Been there, done that, didn't get relieved for cause. -
Re:Sexier???
Try being an engineer in the submarine business. The only thing that sells nowadays is the longer, girthier, black cylinders. Not only are they full of seamen, but they launch a variety of other phallic objects. Good thing the Navy likes to keep things under wraps.
-
Re:One would think...
Other than that, I don't know. I think it's a cremonial thing only. Probably has a great story behind it that I never heard.
Here's what I found on the subject. Sadly, it seems that most of the lore behind the sponsor is lost in time.
My old boat was last seen at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard waiting for her turn to go into the death dock and be cut up for scrap. Thanks draft dodger Bill "the blazing zipper" Clinton.
Aye. Here she is in '97. I assume she's been long turned to scrap.
I have to say that it was painful to see how much our ships had deteriorated after Clinton. Not only that, but how much public awareness had dropped. When CNN did an expose on our carriers, my coworkers were amazed at how truly large and powerful the vessels were. I could only bring myself to comment that it was good to see them used again instead of rotting somewhere at sea.
Bush has had a hard time revitalizing our military, but he is actually doing it. If he ever figures out how to convey integrity (and goes and fixes the damn prison situation; treat them like OFFICERS dammit!) he'll be remembered as a fine president.
BTW, you may already know about it, but this list may be of use to you.
-
What happened to the PHM Pegasus Program??
I loved the C64 game PHM Pegasus base on real hardware; A.
Missle equiped hydrofoils
If the USN wants to bust terrorist/pirate bad guys in the costal shallows or the open seas this is a possible weapons system that met an untimely end.
For more info on the PHM program -
Re:Pictures of the ship
This one is a very good picture. You can see what makes it so fast.
-
Re:Shame
Not to pick but as a former MM on the Enterprise she was originally designed, and currently contains 8 reactors. All Nimitz class carriers contain 2 reactors.
You are correct that each reactor could power a small city. The prototype I attended in Idaho at the INEL (now INEEL) actually supplied power from the A1W and S1W reactors to a small local city. The power companies did not like this and had congress stop this in the 60s.
Additionally, as of this posting, no one has mentioned that the Navy's reactors contain highly enriched reactors. It would be cost prohibitive for civilian reactors to enrich their fuel to the levels of the USN.
BTW I am posting anonymously due to mod points that I have all ready doled out on this thread. I post as Yazheirx
-
Re:Shame
Not to pick but as a former MM on the Enterprise she was originally designed, and currently contains 8 reactors. All Nimitz class carriers contain 2 reactors.
You are correct that each reactor could power a small city. The prototype I attended in Idaho at the INEL (now INEEL) actually supplied power from the A1W and S1W reactors to a small local city. The power companies did not like this and had congress stop this in the 60s.
Additionally, as of this posting, no one has mentioned that the Navy's reactors contain highly enriched reactors. It would be cost prohibitive for civilian reactors to enrich their fuel to the levels of the USN.
BTW I am posting anonymously due to mod points that I have all ready doled out on this thread. I post as Yazheirx
-
Re:Simply wrong
yeah, there's something wrong with this picture
on the other hand, at least Bush Sr was an actualy Navy pilot "hero". -
Re:Simply wrong
yeah, there's something wrong with this picture
on the other hand, at least Bush Sr was an actualy Navy pilot "hero". -
Re:Simply wrong
>to go from the Lincoln and Washington to the Reagan and Bush
well, not exactly
USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71)
USS FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (CVB-42)
USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75)
USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69)
USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CVA-67)
but I agree with the point that this seems premature (but aren't _all_ naval ship namings politically motivated?) -
Re:Simply wrong
>to go from the Lincoln and Washington to the Reagan and Bush
well, not exactly
USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71)
USS FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (CVB-42)
USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75)
USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69)
USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CVA-67)
but I agree with the point that this seems premature (but aren't _all_ naval ship namings politically motivated?) -
Re:Simply wrong
>to go from the Lincoln and Washington to the Reagan and Bush
well, not exactly
USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71)
USS FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (CVB-42)
USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75)
USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69)
USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CVA-67)
but I agree with the point that this seems premature (but aren't _all_ naval ship namings politically motivated?) -
Re:Simply wrong
>to go from the Lincoln and Washington to the Reagan and Bush
well, not exactly
USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71)
USS FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (CVB-42)
USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75)
USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69)
USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CVA-67)
but I agree with the point that this seems premature (but aren't _all_ naval ship namings politically motivated?) -
Re:Simply wrong
>to go from the Lincoln and Washington to the Reagan and Bush
well, not exactly
USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71)
USS FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (CVB-42)
USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75)
USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69)
USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CVA-67)
but I agree with the point that this seems premature (but aren't _all_ naval ship namings politically motivated?) -
Re:Simply wrong
>to go from the Lincoln and Washington to the Reagan and Bush
well, not exactly
USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71)
USS FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (CVB-42)
USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75)
USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69)
USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CVA-67)
but I agree with the point that this seems premature (but aren't _all_ naval ship namings politically motivated?)