Slashdot Mirror


Buy Your Own Aircraft Carrier

Vodalian writes "Distinction as the last surviving Aircraft Carrier built in England for WW II and commissioned as the HMS Vengeance in late 1944, this unique vessel served the British then the Australian Navy as HMAS Vengeance prior to her sale to Brazil In 1956. Undergoing reconstruction and overhaul in Rotterdam from 1957 to 1960 she was commissioned as the Minas Gerais in December of that year. During her service with the Brazilian Navy she was overhauled from 1976 to 1980 completing a 5-year refit in 1981. She was decommissioned on the 16th of October 2001 and is currently for sale."

518 comments

  1. Build your own aircraft carrier... by TheMidget · · Score: 4, Funny
    ... and whack those crazy Merkins and their DMCA laws with it! We want a free Europe!!!!

    Frist Psot?

    1. Re:Build your own aircraft carrier... by BriSTO(V)L · · Score: 2, Funny

      The rumour that this CV has already been secretly bought by the RIAA for an unspecified "future project" is probably no more than that: an unsubstantiated rumour... ("...Tomorrow the World!!!")

    2. Re:Build your own aircraft carrier... by Whatsthiswhatsthis · · Score: 1

      Can I whack the tires first? Where's the pushy used carrier salesman?

    3. Re:Build your own aircraft carrier... by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Troll

      A free Europe.

      With cameras on every corner.

      With ID cards for every serf^H^H^H^Hcitizen.

      With manditory key escrow.

      Hmmmm. This must be some new, European definition of "free" that hasn't yet spread to the US.

    4. Re:Build your own aircraft carrier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the satellite GPS tracking systems in future vehicles.

    5. Re:Build your own aircraft carrier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't confuse the UK with the rest of Europe. Blair is just Bush's poodle. Heck, the Brits don't even have the Euro yet.

    6. Re:Build your own aircraft carrier... by 73939133 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US has ID cards, too: social security and drivers licenses. No modern society can function without them. In contrast to the US, Europeans have worked out strong privacy laws and carefully designed ID cards to address privacy concerns. The net effect is that privacy protections in Europe are stronger than in the US because Europeans are actually tackling issues of privacy, while Americans just stick their heads in the sand and pretend that the problem doesn't exist.

      Similar comments apply to cameras. As for key escrow, I'm not aware of any Europe-wide adoption of key escrow policies. Can you point to any?

  2. build or buy ? by Spacelord · · Score: 5, Funny

    For a second I thought it said *build* your own aircraft carrier .... now that would have been a feat :)

    1. Re:build or buy ? by NineBall · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, considering some of the other stories on slashdot, you never know.

      --
      You may not agree with what I'm saying but I'll kill you for my right to say it
    2. Re:build or buy ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you then have a GNU/Aircraft Carrier?

    3. Re:build or buy ? by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Seriously, if you're a minor country 'build or buy' is a serious issue. Building a carrier is bloody expensive, but if you do so you give at least one of your port cities a major employment boost and at the end of it you get a shiny modern carrier. Buying someone else's cast-offs is far cheaper, but you'll have to accept that it's a fixer-upper and pay for refits and awful maintenance bills.

      The original owner of this carrier is currently starting work on two really _big_ carriers as part of a scheme to switch from a military geared to fight World War 3 on the Rhine to a highly mobile force capable of dropping in on people at short notice and spoiling their day. Consequently, three Falklands-vintage carriers will soon be on the market for any dictator on good enough terms with London... So if anyone's planning to buy this carrier, do remember that in a couple of years your neighbour could be planning to buy a whole fleet ;-)

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    4. Re:build or buy ? by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

      When I first read it earlier, I was sure it said "build"

    5. Re:build or buy ? by donscarletti · · Score: 1
      if you're a minor country 'build or buy' is a serious issue

      If you are a minor country it probably is not worth it having carriers... a fleet of subs is good enough for the defence of pretty much any "minor" country... if you want a carrier then chances are you are up to some airborne mischief on the other side of the planet, something that "minor" countries possibly with the exception of afghanistan rarely do.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    6. Re:build or buy ? by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      And then mod that bitch like crazy! Big ol clear side panel and a shitload of neon lighting coming from the hanger deck would do the trick. Redo the whole thing in a kind of brushed aluminum finish and put some monster fans in it and you're set!

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    7. Re:build or buy ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I hand you a blank check, will you sign it? Faggot!

    8. Re:build or buy ? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Building a carrier is bloody expensive,"

      Putting planes on it is even more expensive. Especially when you're talking about a flight deck dating from WWII. Unless you're planning to go back to piston-driven aircraft, this ship will more or less require either a major overhaul or a plane specifically built for it. Add in the cost for a shipload of AV8Bs and suddenly the price triples (at the very least).

      "Consequently, three Falklands-vintage carriers will soon be on the market for any dictator on good enough terms with London..."

      It's probably cheaper to buy Falklands-vintage Exocets.

    9. Re:build or buy ? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      It's probably cheaper to buy Falklands-vintage Exocets.

      Now that was really, _really_ low...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    10. Re:build or buy ? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      About 10 years ago, Russia offered a working military submarine for a mere $75,000 (torpedos and crew not included). Not a bad price for a world domination starter kit. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:build or buy ? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Actually, a WWII-vintage carrier would probably do better against Exocets. The "modern" ships sunk by Exocets were built with the "speed uber alles" pilosophy and had paper-thin aluminum hulls. Anything with real armor wouldn't have been mission-kills. (The same could probably be said about the USS Cole.)

      Q: What does the captain of an Iowa-class battleship do after his ship is hit with an Exocet missile?

      A: He sends two ratings up on deck. One with a broom and a dustpan; the other with a can of gray paint and a brush.

    12. Re:build or buy ? by scotartt · · Score: 1

      Not just build or buy and equip with aircraft. Operating the damn thing is the biggest cost. Many of those aircraft carriers that you see in the 'order of battle' (fleet lists) of third and second world nations simply hardly ever put to sea. And if you can't put to sea very often, your crew isn't very well trained ... and then you've not got a very effective weapon.

      Me, I want a gas turbine powered frigate, not a aircraft carrier.

      --
      -A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed-
    13. Re:build or buy ? by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      Forget that, I want articles on MODDING my aircraft carrier...

  3. Hmmm by PS-SCUD · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's just a guess, but I think you'd need something bigger than a creek to sail that in!

    --


    "Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
  4. Put that baby on eBay !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    No reserve, I'll give em' $50 bucks. Buyer pays shipping

    1. Re:Put that baby on eBay !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $4,500,000 reserve you idiot. But give me $5M and I'll deliver it.

    2. Re:Put that baby on eBay !!! by f97tosc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, this has precedence. A Swedish fighter jet of type Draken was sold on ebay.

      The problem is that for these types of items the sticker price is usually only a small part of the cost of actually owning and maintaining one.

      Tor

    3. Re:Put that baby on eBay !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My back-of-the-envelope calculations estimate that a tank of gas for this thing will cost somewhere between one and two million dollars.

    4. Re:Put that baby on eBay !!! by Malc · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you said "shipping", and "freight" or "postage and packing".

    5. Re:Put that baby on eBay !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but once you've got an aircraft carrier you can go and liberate some oil.

    6. Re:Put that baby on eBay !!! by more+fool+you · · Score: 1

      ... or open up an airport.

  5. Bring idea! by chrisgeleven · · Score: 4, Funny

    Corporations this is your chance to become a world power by buying your very own aircraft carrier! Of course you have to fund the personnel to run the carrier and then get some fighter jets but imagine the countries you can frighten into accepting your tyrannical contracts!

    1. Re:Bring idea! by Nagatzhul · · Score: 1

      Like you want to give Micro$oft any ideas? They could actually afford to do it!

      --
      "All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
    2. Re:Bring idea! by secolactico · · Score: 1

      Quick question... Is there a corporation rich enough to become a "super power"? Say, incorporate itself in a remote island and "buy" the goverment and develop nuclear capabilities, etc? This is the stuff cyberpunk novels are often made of.

      I guess money is the only obstacle, after all, Disney managed to loophole its way into having its own goverment in Reedy Creek.

      --
      No sig
    3. Re:Bring idea! by AlecC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See John Brunner's "Stand on Zanzibar" - an excellent book - in which something like this happened. A megacorp bought an aircraft carrier to use as a base for their take ove of "Beninia" - probably Gambia.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    4. Re:Bring idea! by AlecC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd say "yes" - but it wouldn't do them that much good. National sovereignty is tolerated only if it doesn't cause problems to the Big Boys. The drugs people tried it with sundry Carribean givernments, and it became clear that it would not be tolerated. If a corp tries, via a foreign country, to upset the US national interests, the US would "fix" that country. Just ask Saddam Hussein.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    5. Re:Bring idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont give microsft any ideas.

  6. Practical Uses by richardmilhousnixon · · Score: 1

    That would make one kick-ass gravy boat!

    --
    -- sometimes AND gates turn me on.
  7. reservations... by inkedmn · · Score: 2, Funny

    i can't even imagine what a nightmare it'd be getting that thing wired for cable...

    --
    well, it's nothing one behind the ear wouldn't cure
  8. Snowcrash by kiltedtaco · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds like something right out of Snowcrash.

    1. Re:Snowcrash by GMontag · · Score: 1

      Yea, sure does :-)

    2. Re:Snowcrash by jagilbertvt · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was thinking the same thing. People, please contribute to my paypal donation fund, as I really want to buy this thing! You'll be more than welcome to join me on her when we rechristen it Enterprise and start a floating city in the Pacific.

  9. Perfect! by Judg3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This goes along with my plans.
    1. Change name ti L. Bob Rife
    2. Create cable TV monopoly
    3. Start own religion
    4. Work on meta-virus
    5. Buy aircraft carrier
    6. Get residents of 3rd world country to do my bidding!

    Sweet!

    --
    Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
    1. Re:Perfect! by Imperial+Tacohead · · Score: 0, Redundant

      God, I can't believe I'm saying this.
      How could you have possibly forgotten the last step?

      7. Profit!!!

    2. Re:Perfect! by bolind · · Score: 4, Informative

      This goes along with my plans.
      1. Change name ti L. Bob Rife
      2. Create cable TV monopoly
      3. Start own religion
      4. Work on meta-virus
      5. Buy aircraft carrier
      6. Get residents of 3rd world country to do my bidding!


      To the people not getting the above reference, go read Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash", in were a decommissioned aircraft carrier is the center of "The Raft", a shitload of floating things, well, floating around, with "refus" (refugees), waiting to get close enough to North America to get ashore to start a new life.

    3. Re:Perfect! by powerlinekid · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm pretty sure that was covered by step 2 ;).

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    4. Re:Perfect! by unborracho · · Score: 2, Funny

      7. ???
      8. Profit!

      --
      "You had this look that of an angel, it was such a bad disguise" --Dishwalla
    5. Re:Perfect! by pjt48108 · · Score: 0

      ROFL

      I always look for the entry with the final two items of the dot-bomb business plan!
      Yes, sad, but true.

      --
      Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
    6. Re:Perfect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, I don't get it. Somebody said the exact same thing before you, but he got modded down, and you got modded up. What the hell?

    7. Re:Perfect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      waiting to get close enough to North America to get ashore to start a new life

      Well, not _exactly_ but that explanation will suffice until they read why for themselves.

    8. Re:Perfect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC so not to karma whore

      he forgot the 7. ????? =)

  10. Yours for only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    $4,500,000(USD)

    of course that is the sticker price. surely you could beat the salesperson down 15%.
    well, maybe "beat" is the wrong adjective when the salesperson is saling a weapon of war.

    1. Re:Yours for only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially since "beat" isn't an adjective...

  11. Hell of a dance floor by jhines · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Great place to throw a party, cruise outside the reach of the law in internatinal waters.

    Hope the weather is good tho.

    1. Re:Hell of a dance floor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      See that ship over there? They're re-broadcasting Major League Baseball with implied oral consent, not express written consent -- or so the legend goes.

    2. Re:Hell of a dance floor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude! At least give credit when you're cribbing from the Simpsons!

    3. Re:Hell of a dance floor by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Ahhh but if your ship is registered American, the Coast Guard can get you anywhere in the world.. they will also claim boarding rights if your ship moves in a direction toward the U.S. while in international waters...

      They'll find some way to nail you... after all, you're driving a warship with lots of firepower toward the U.S. I'm sure if they wanted to they'd declare you a terrorist, blow your ship up, sieze your bank accounts, and ignore due process the entire way...

      This is why we shouldn't give up our rights in exchange for "security"... look what happened to Rome... same deal..

    4. Re:Hell of a dance floor by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1

      You might want to put some kind of rail on that deck first, though, or bad things could happen.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    5. Re:Hell of a dance floor by T-Ranger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Aircraft carriers, when they dont have the air wing aboard, have next to no offensive weponry. Which is why both naval aviatiors have a shoot first and ask questions later policy on unfriendlys who stray within 200mi of there boat, and why carries have upwards of a dozen ships in there screening force.

    6. Re:Hell of a dance floor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I should point that out. How silly of me to expect people on Slashdot to get a Simpons reference! Silly me.

    7. Re:Hell of a dance floor by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

      My only knowledge of laws regarding international waters occurs from Part 97 of the FCC laws, governing amateur (ham) radio, so I'm not sure if they apply to other things or not, but...

      Essentially, if you're in international waters, I believe you're subject to the laws of wherever the ship is registered. In other words, if you register it in the US, and take it into international waters, you're bound by US laws and probably subject to US police coming after you.

      Register it in a liberal place like New Amsterdam (I think? Aren't they drug- and prostitute-friendly?) and you'll be able to have parties that are way more fun. =-D

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    8. Re:Hell of a dance floor by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "there boat"
      "there screening force"

      I'm just wondering, do you people do this on purpose? Or is it a second-language thing?

      Do people learning French mix up leur with or ils sont? How in the hell do native speakers of English make this error?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:Hell of a dance floor by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      It almost has to be a native speaker thing...

      someone learning the language would see there, their and they're as three completely different words that just happen to be pronounced very similar....

      A native english speaker hears the words first and thinks of them as the same word, spelt slightly different depending on context.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    10. Re:Hell of a dance floor by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      New Amsterdam was a decent port of convenience once, but these days it's a sprawling megalopolis. I doubt you'd find haven from the laws of the USA there.

      Most people tend to pick somewhere like Panama for their flags of convenience. Liberia's popular too, as are a variety of island states.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    11. Re:Hell of a dance floor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the storage hanger has been converted into a near full-size soccer pitch. (Source) You could probably turn it into one hell of a night club...

    12. Re:Hell of a dance floor by Grahf666 · · Score: 1

      Can we register it in Sealand then? :P

    13. Re:Hell of a dance floor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a grammar nazi on purpose? It's slashdot, lighten up.

    14. Re:Hell of a dance floor by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      Amsterdam (not "New Amsterdam", which got renamed to New York), is the capital of the Netherlands. Like any Dutch city it has a relaxed attitude towards soft drugs and prostitution (soft drugs are "tolerated", which means practically legal, prostitution is fully legal).

      However, the Netherlands are in the EU, which means Regulation Hell, something we Dutch seems to be really good at ourselves.

      Heck, the new government that was installed last week actually has a minister of fewer regulations. Yeah, that'll work.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    15. Re:Hell of a dance floor by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Until you run into some pirates (and I mean real pirates) and the USCG smiles, waves, and says "Sorry, not our problem!"

    16. Re:Hell of a dance floor by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

      rotfl, I completely missed your point until I read one of the other replies from someone in Amsterdam, noting that "New Amsterdam" is now "New York." (What on Earth was I thinking?!) I suppose there's a subtle distinction between "New Amsterdam" and "New York." I'm so embarassed by this mistake that I think I'll flee the country for New Mexico. *ducks*

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    17. Re:Hell of a dance floor by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

      I really am losing it! I suppose there's a subtle distinction between "New Amsterdam" and "New York." s/New York/Amsterdam/

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  12. Slow day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This article is proof that Saturday is always slow at the Slashdot office

  13. I'd like to buy a concorde ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI, today was the last day for the cocorde flight of Air France. British Airways will also discontinue the marvelous white bird bullet lines in october :(

    I want to dream again ! Let it fly ...

  14. Bass Boat by laosland · · Score: 2, Funny

    This would make one hell of a bass boat... Think of the size of the trolling motor you'd need.

  15. Nice Price by jspoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $4.5 million sounds like a steal. It probably costs more than that to keep it in port for a year, let alone what it would actually cost to operate.

    1. Re:Nice Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's 4.5m in canadian dollars, so in usd it'd be pretty much free. in fact i think they pay you to take it away.

      monday on /. recommissioning a carrier to run linux and finally end the sco debacle.

    2. Re:Nice Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you born stupid or did you have to practice?

    3. Re:Nice Price by blair1q · · Score: 0, Troll

      It probably costs more than $4.5 million to paint the fucking thing.

    4. Re:Nice Price by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is why she's so cheap, of course. Massive operating costs make her a tough sell; there's probably nobody out there who will regard her as being worth the price it will take to run her. She's being sold for her scrap value, sad to say. Whoever buys her will undoubtedly break her up and sell the pieces.

      Chris Mattern

    5. Re:Nice Price by drunkenbatman · · Score: 1

      Anyone know how much it cost fresh off the shipyard, and what the retrofits cost... or just how much you could get for melting the whole thing down and recycling it?

      Just kind of curious. I mean when you add in the operating costs over its life, the original cost, and the cost of the retrofits... damn. Kinda puts it into perspective. Kinda cool to think my mac has a better resale value than an aircraft carrier...

    6. Re:Nice Price by Ed+Avis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I hear that Sealand makes a profit... would it be possible to stick an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean and stick web servers on it? Perhaps the jurisdictional issues would be more complex than with Sealand.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    7. Re:Nice Price by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The Chinese should buy it...heck they already bought all of the old, rusty Russian carriers from the 80s. No junky carrier collection would be complete without the pride of Brazil.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:Nice Price by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 2, Funny

      My brother-in-law was looking for a new fishing boat. I figure I'll tell him about it. He'd have room for lots of salmon on this baby.

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    9. Re:Nice Price by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      Damn! Which sucker did *you* sell your old mac to for 4.5mil?

    10. Re:Nice Price by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Under maritime law, ships must be registered in a country and therefore subject to its laws. You can't sail a ship in to the middle of the ocean and declare the ship to be a country.

      Not to mention that it's going to have to have periodic dockings for maintenance and to take on supplies. Sorry, it just won't work.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    11. Re:Nice Price by dracocat · · Score: 1

      Yes, except as soon as you do something a powerfull country doesn't like, the thing could also be silently bombed with no trace left.

    12. Re:Nice Price by nacs · · Score: 1

      Yeah I thought it was a good price too. Does anybody know if they take Paypal?

      --
      "I filter at +6, and have yet to miss out on an important comment." (#822545)
    13. Re:Nice Price by Rick.C · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it would almost be worth it just to use it to tease Mr. Ashcroft for a while before he sank it.

      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    14. Re:Nice Price by bajo77 · · Score: 0

      BUT IT'S AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER!!!
      I'm sure theres some multi-millionare who thinks it would be cool to own an aircraft carrier. Perhaps those interested should also check out www.villainsupply.com

    15. Re:Nice Price by StarTux · · Score: 1

      Maybe, or a rich very rich person buys it and converts it into an anchorage, may not ever sail, but being statitc would reduce a lot of the costs.

    16. Re:Nice Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real warriors could fight you to death with any old crap they have at hand.

      U.S. soldiers are a bunch of lazy spoiled kids that couldn't find their own butt even if you shown them with hi-tech virtual 3D gadgets.

    17. Re:Nice Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sealand has the benefits of:
      1) Britain not being interested enough to stop them
      2) Being built on ocean floor
      3) No fuel costs/Port Calls to negotiate

      I mean, in theory, you could use satellite uplinks for your servers and just float, and maybe contract various fuel/goods deliveries, and you could get around some diplomatic issues. Or dock in less than reputable countries. Sealand is just Britain, protected by legal laziness.

    18. Re:Nice Price by Poofat · · Score: 1

      Yeah look how badly they failed in Iraq... err wait...

  16. Offshore computing center? by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

    You could fit an entire city inside one of these things. With no airplanes the hangers would be friggin huge.

    Reminds me of a Macross story...

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
    1. Re:Offshore computing center? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's big, but not that big:
      • Length: 693' 3" Overall 630' Waterline
      • 690' Flight deck
      • Beam: 80' 119' 6" Flight deck
      • Draught: 23' Fore 23' 5" aft
      • Complement: 1300 (1000 Navy, 300 Air)
      • Hanger: 322' long by 52' Width by 17' 6" height
      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Offshore computing center? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're probably thinking of an American Nimitz-class nuclear carrier, with its 5 acres of deck space and 5,000 crew. This one is WWII-vintage, and not quite so large. It's actually quite small, by aircraft carrier standards.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Offshore computing center? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep this is a small carrier.

      Smaller than the amphib assault ships the Navy has.

      The only current aircraft one could operate off this would be A-4s, Harriers, Hawkeye AWACS, Trackers, and helos.

    4. Re:Offshore computing center? by Matthaeus · · Score: 1

      Length: 693' 3" Overall

      Yeah. What do you think I am, a Vanderbilt? Anyway, welcome to my yacht.

    5. Re:Offshore computing center? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you do realize that hanger has more than 16 thousand square feet of space, right?

      And that's just the hanger. I mean, it holds 1300 crew also.

      That's big. Not Nimitz big, but pretty damn huge.

    6. Re:Offshore computing center? by visgoth · · Score: 1

      Those aircaft would still be more than enough to cause a world of trouble for most 3rd world countries... Too bad a carrier by itself is rather useless. Even with aircraft it would still need some other ships to provide protection to it. Anyone happen to know where to get some surplus frigates, cruisers and submarines?

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    7. Re:Offshore computing center? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Sure, but not SDF-1, Macross "whole town" big like the parent post suggested. It'd be tight for a crew of Zentraedi. :^)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  17. offtopic, i know... by xao+gypsie · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...but man, she gets around more than my ex-girlfriend...

    xao

    --


    xao
    http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
    1. Re:offtopic, i know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who is your ex-girlfriend?

    2. Re:offtopic, i know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, she doesn't.

    3. Re:offtopic, i know... by fobbman · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...and carries about as much seamen...

      Sorry dude, she was my ex-girlfriend, too.

    4. Re:offtopic, i know... by jfisherwa · · Score: 1

      You were dating Christina Aguilera too? I feel so used.

    5. Re:offtopic, i know... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Heh. I was saw 900 sailors riding her simultaneously.

    6. Re:offtopic, i know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Like anyone posting on Slashdot has a girlfriend.

    7. Re:offtopic, i know... by srvivn21 · · Score: 1

      Sorry dude, she was my ex-girlfriend, too.


      Was?
  18. It's already set up for soccer by Chairboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    According to an article I read, while the flight deck elevator (that brings planes up to the top from the hangar) works, the actual hangar deck has been converted to a soccer arena.

    1. Re:It's already set up for soccer by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      That's gotta get expensive in terms of replacement soccer balls.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    2. Re:It's already set up for soccer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Not really. Since soccer balls float, you can pay a Brazilian kid five cents to dive into the water after a ball falls over the side.

    3. Re:It's already set up for soccer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not entirelly true. Ive been inside this ship some time ago (about 4 years) whem my father still worked in the Brazillian Navy. The aircrafts that operated in this ship wherent from the Brazillian Navy, but from the Brazillian Air Force, so when it arrived for his port (the Navy base in Rio de Janeiro) the aircrafts went for his own base. The big space inside the ship was then converted in one soccer arena and one volley arena :)

      Daniel Mendes

  19. Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My uncle bought an old Russian diesel sub. in 1996 for 150k he turned it into a floating restaurant on the Mississipi river.

    1. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that old sub have sunk in that River...surely freshwater isn't boyant enough, unless you mean he dry docked it and wedged it into a sand bar or something.

    2. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      well he pretty much had to gut most of insides of the sub. It is dry docked by for publicity when it opened he had it towed up and down the river.

    3. Re:Big deal by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there's any more subs for sale. One of those would be great for a lot of things. For instance, I believe the Church of Scientology's headquarters is located on a ship in international waters. A couple of torpedoes could take care of that problem very nicely...

    4. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, where?

  20. I'm in! by fadeaway · · Score: 5, Funny

    If 15,000 of us put in $300, we could get this baby.

    Oh, the LAN parties we could have on the SS /.!

    1. Re:I'm in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you could have the LAN parties below decks, and we could set up one hell of an antenna farm on the flight deck and run our ham rigs to our hearts' content.

      And, use the aircraft hangers for parties, or tennis tournaments or something...

    2. Re:I'm in! by physicsnerd · · Score: 1
      Count me in! It's about time slashdot had its own navy! Think of all the classic video games we set up on that thing. Oh, and we could turn the flight deck into a battle bots arena. The potential is endless. I'm so in, heck I'll even chip in $600. Hey Taco what'cha say, are you in too?

      Physicsnerd

    3. Re:I'm in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm Why doesnt someone set up a PayPal account and a website with a forumn in it so we can get this thing?

      Im in!

    4. Re:I'm in! by aardwolf204 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Have you ever been to a LAN party? Every time I go to one of these "massive lanning events" (200+ gamers) I'm stuck next to leety mc'leet's clan of anti-deoderant counter-strikers. Now throw 15,000 of these guys in a boat and add some sea sickness and you've got a biohazard.

      --
      Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
    5. Re:I'm in! by phyrestang · · Score: 1

      We could divide it up into $15,000 shares. And depending on how many shares you own determines your placement in the ship (better quarters) and other things like that. Put me down for two shares also.

    6. Re:I'm in! by phyrestang · · Score: 1

      Whoops... take out that $ before the 15,000 I meant to say 15,000 $300 shares.

    7. Re:I'm in! by jabberjaw777 · · Score: 1

      but then we could sink 'er!

    8. Re:I'm in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her complement is 1300, thats 10 almost ten times more, things might be a bit crowded. Although I presume there are no copyright laws, DMCA etc at sea :)

    9. Re:I'm in! by GnomeAttic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ok, new plan! We host an "ULTR4 1337 LAN party" on the boat, and when all the anti-deoderant counter-strikers are locked away on the boat, we sail them right off the edge of the earth. For a mere 4.5 mil, we can bring FPSs back to the commoners.

    10. Re:I'm in! by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      Yeah... but it's a floating bio-hazard that can then be sent in the opposite direction.

      It would be worth the money for that alone.

    11. Re:I'm in! by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1
      Have you ever been to a LAN party? Every time I go to one of these "massive lanning events" (200+ gamers) I'm stuck next to leety mc'leet's clan of anti-deoderant counter-strikers. Now throw 15,000 of these guys in a boat and add some sea sickness and you've got a biohazard.

      ... and a big, fat, floating target with the words "COUNTER STRIKE PLAYERS AND MP3 PIRACY AHOY! PLEASE DROP RIAA/MPAA AUTHORIZED NUCLEAR WEAPON ON FLASHY RED TARGET LOCATED ON THE FLIGHT DECK." all along the sides of the ship.

    12. Re:I'm in! by Jeffv323 · · Score: 2, Informative

      THe earth iss round..

      --
      I'm a minister!
    13. Re:I'm in! by znode · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now throw 15,000 of these guys in a boat and add some sea sickness and you've got a biohazard. Is that a weapon of mass destruction?

    14. Re:I'm in! by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      Lan parties schman parties. After we acquire the carrier, the next step is to get some bombers. SCO, M$, the MPAA, they'll all pay us some respect then.

      We could vote on where to send it next using /. polls:
      a) Redmond
      b) The Gulf
      c) Cowboy Neal's house

    15. Re:I'm in! by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Count me in, but I'm only sending the money if you get 15,000 other people to commit :)

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    16. Re:I'm in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the earth is round how come we don't fall off???

    17. Re:I'm in! by Zugok · · Score: 1

      Lan parties? Are you kidding, I want to play some real life counterstrike, and trhow in the scaling down walls and breaking through windows. Oooops here goes the maintenance budget.

      --
      "I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
    18. Re:I'm in! by bratwiz · · Score: 1

      Yes, but look on the bright side... it might sink! ;)

    19. Re:I'm in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To late! You have to honnor your bid or I will leave you negative feedback.

    20. Re:I'm in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in. Seattle's a port town!

  21. Come on, Slashdot! by Winterblink · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Lets put together a trust fund to buy this thing in the name of nerd news and matter-ful stuff. With the sizable readership of this site we could probably drop in a few bucks a piece to purchase it. :)

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
    1. Re:Come on, Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and yet none of you actually subscribe in order to keep the site going. Typical attitude here: "Let's fund a new k001 slashdot cruiser "

    2. Re:Come on, Slashdot! by Winterblink · · Score: 1
      ... and yet none of you actually subscribe in order to keep the site going. Typical attitude here: "Let's fund a new k001 slashdot cruiser "

      Hey I'd subscribe to /. if it meant I could hold lan parties on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Find a jerk using a cheat in CS? Use the deck catapult to fling his box a few km away

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    3. Re:Come on, Slashdot! by vicviper · · Score: 1

      No, of course not... (ignore the *)

  22. Minas Gerais by lgordon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh well. I thought they were selling something cool, like Minas Tirith or Minas Morgul.

  23. Perfect prop by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    for the next James Bond movie. I can just see the villan plotting global domination on my^H^H his carrier base....

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  24. that's cheap by luzrek · · Score: 4, Interesting
    And for only 4.5 million USD. If only I had that much.

    Seriously, that thing would make one hell of a house. You could just more it up to a dock. Barge on the Seine my butt. I want an aircraft carrier in New York Harbor.

    On second thought that would make one hell of a target for terrorists. Better put it somewhere in New Jersey.

    --

    Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.

    1. Re:that's cheap by Superfreaker · · Score: 1

      There already is an aircraft in NY harbor, the USS Intrepid (http://www.intrepidmuseum.org)

    2. Re:that's cheap by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      If you put it in New Jersey, you'd have to worry about all of the idiot drivers... I don't know what's worse, a terrorist with 15lbs of C4 strapped to his schlong, or some 18-year old Jersey Girl putting on her makeup, talking on her cellphone, eating her celery stick, and reading the newspaper all while not realizing that she's driving a vehicle.

    3. Re:that's cheap by EvanED · · Score: 1

      >>On second thought that would make one hell of a target for terrorists.

      It's an aircraft carrier... what are you worried about?

    4. Re:that's cheap by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      It's an aircraft carrier... what are you worried about?

      Usually submarines, if I remember correctly. ;)

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    5. Re:that's cheap by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      And exactly how many terrorist organizations do YOU know of who have submarines?

  25. $4.5 million USD! by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So a complement of 1.300, each paying $400 a month rent...

    That's easily a half million rent a month! So living aboard, for a year, would generate $6 million, which covers the cost of upkeep and purchase in 2 years, and profitable in 3!

    1. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but who'd want to live in an aircraft carrier? You have any idea what the "accomodations" are like?

    2. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

      And anyone who slacks on the rent gets shot off the catapult

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    3. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thankfully new UK carriers don't have catapults, we switched to the ski jump style a while back which is much friendlier for the airframe and allows a greater take off weight, especially when coupled with BAE Harriers (or indeed a JSF).

      Of course at one point we were even thinking of doing away with flight decks on carriers - there was an experimental sky hook system to catch a flying Harrier on a smaller ship. Thankfully abandoned due to sanity returning and the drugs wearing off :o)

      --
      Beep beep.
    4. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Imperator · · Score: 1

      Would you pay $400/mon to sleep in a bunk above 5 others? Thanks, but I'll keep paying rent to sleep in my dumpster.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    5. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, no, you make 'em walk the plank!

      Or you keel-haul 'em. *ouch*

      "Scrub the poop-deck? Where's that at - is it near the Lido deck?"

    6. Re:$4.5 million USD! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      What about insurance and legal fees? There goes your profit...

    7. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, take that here to the SF bay area, and I'll bet you can get 1300 people to sign leases for $400 a month in about 15 minutes.

    8. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually your takeoff weight would be lower without a catapult launch, maintence aside its still the only way to operate large bomb laden strike aircraft.

    9. Re:$4.5 million USD! by The+Mayor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is exactly why British aircraft carriers are completely ineffective. By going for a smaller (and cheaper) aircraft carrier, they have reduced the number of aircraft from around 90 to around 40. Recent conflicts have shown that it takes about 30-40 aircraft simply to provide adequate air support for one aircraft carrier. The result? You can provide air cover for your fleet, but you can't project air power. The aircraft carriers dispatched to the Falklands were never fully engaged in combat, and their air cover was even suspect (that, and a bug in their defence software didn't recognize the Argentinian Exocets as enemy targets).

      Trust me, smaller aircraft carriers result in wasted money. The only country able to project significant air power from a mobile platform is the US, and this is only because they spend so f'ing much on each carrier.

      --
      --Be human.
    10. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt the accomodations are much, much better than what $400 would buy you in New York for instance.

    11. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this "funny"? It is modded as +5 Funny and I don't see anything even mildly amusing. Is it quoting from a movie that was funny?

    12. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the rental market in S.F. tanked. Not true?

    13. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

      First thing you need to remember about cats is that you loose significant useful weight with an undercarrage that can take the jerk (really, its the technical term for delta A, and relates to the rate of change of force). This is no problem for a conventional landing a/c (like the hornet) which already has a beefy undercarriage to survive a carrier landing.

      However, if you want to shave off all this weight (say you have a vertical landing* a/c for example, so you have no problems at that end) a steam catapult would require huge weight gains that just do not justify the extra speed you can get up to. At this point, especially with an a/c that has vectored thrust, a ramp launch will actually give you more usable payload than a cat launch.

      Couple this with the ability of a ramp to let you launch in a fast stream (you can go as close as 30 secs apart if you have pilots with a slack attituide to saftey) compared to the delay required to recock and reload each cat and it becommes pretty attractive.

      The harrier may well be ending its useful life, but it still carries a fair number of weapons - and JSF will carry even more as well as flying faster and further. It wouldn't shock me to see that a lot of organisations (RN, USMC - USN will probably go Cats because they still need to launcy legacy a/c) look at cats vs ramps and decide that takeoff ramps are the way to go for their JSF carriers.

      *Note that most VTOL a/c don't normally take off vertically, not because they can't but because even a small airflow over the wings massivly increases their useful payload.

      --
      Beep beep.
    14. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why British aircraft carriers are completely ineffective. By going for a smaller (and cheaper) aircraft carrier, they have reduced the number of aircraft from around 90 to around 40.
      <br><br>
      Oh, indeed - small carriers was a mistake (unless you believe that defense spending in itself is a waste of money). This isn't a problem with the ramp though, on a large carrier with a jump wide enough for two aircraft you could quite happily carry _lots_ or harriers and launch one every 15 seconds or so with a decent payload.

      --
      Beep beep.
    15. Re:$4.5 million USD! by The+Mayor · · Score: 1

      Except that the whole reason for the ramp was to make the aircraft carrier smaller and less expensive. If you have a bigger aircraft carrier, the room for the flight deck isn't as critical.

      Harriers are complete wastes of money. Less effective than Apaches and A-10s against tanks, and they can't carry enough ordinance to be effective at air support, fighting, or bombing rolls. In the UK's attempt to build the end-all, be-all jet, they made a jet that is completely useless, with only 4000 lbs payload (under normal configuration) of ordinance (compared with 4x that or more for competing aircraft) and a much smaller flight envelope than any jet aircraft in the sky.

      When it comes down to it, actual experience in a number of conflicts has demonstrated that small aircraft carriers are ineffective at anything other than self defence. Since ships are otherwise sitting ducks to air attacks, I guess this is a decent role for them, but I really feel they are a "committee"-type solution to the problem (trying to be all things to all people, and ending up failing on them all).

      --
      --Be human.
    16. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      However, the combat load of a Harrier or JSF is about half that of American combat aircraft that operate off of full-deck carriers.

      Perfect example is the comparison of the F-35B (STOVL version) with the F-35C (US Navy version). The -C variant carries 4000lb more payload and 1000lb more fuel than the -B variant the US Marines and the Royal Navy will use.

      http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/a ir craft/jsf-specs.htm

      Note that they cite the -C version as having a shorter wing; I don't believe this is correct. The US Navy specced a larger wing for better payload and more benign handling at low speed for carrier operations. I believe the -C is equipped with folding wing tips like the F/A-18, so that may be the dimension specified. They also spec a combat radius of "over 600 miles", which is not very specific. I think the Navy's version is going to be the longest range, although both Navy and Air Force get aerial refueling capabilities.

      I think. : )

      Jeep carriers, like the Brits and the Marines use, are formidable combat vessels. They are not nearly as powerful or flexible, nor do they have near the strike range, of a full-deck supercarrier.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    17. Re:$4.5 million USD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The only country able to project significant air power from a mobile platform is the US, and this is only because they spend so f'ing much on each carrier.

      France has one full-fledged aircraft carrier with ~40 aircraft on board (Rafales, Super Etendard, Hawkeyes and CSAR helos), which is nuclear powered. Less than a year after having been officially comissioned it conducted its first combat operations, flying dozens of strike missions over Afghanistan.

      The Brits actually shopped in France to contract the building of their next generation of carriers, to be commissioned in the 2010s.

    18. Re:$4.5 million USD! by torklugnutz · · Score: 1

      Step 1: Buy Aircraft Carrier
      Step 2: ????
      Step 3: Profit!

      --
      Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
    19. Re:$4.5 million USD! by tigga · · Score: 1
      I thought the rental market in S.F. tanked. Not true?

      No, you can have more choice and you can be more flexible with prices, but it still pricier than in 97...

    20. Re:$4.5 million USD! by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Actually, little know fact, just in case the carriers were not enough, we have the rough equivelent of the smaller carriers out there as well. They are the LHA/LHD class ships (I believe that there are roughly 14 of them). While they carry smaller numbers of planes, they make up for it by being able to deploy LCAC's (hovercrafts).

      When the JSF's are done, these ships will have a pretty impressive amount of firepower, cheap.

    21. Re:$4.5 million USD! by The+Mayor · · Score: 1

      Yep. That's because they didn't have to provide air support for their own aircraft carrier.

      The same goes for the Russian aircraft carriers.

      Experience shows that you really need >60 aircraft to provide both air cover for your carrier and the power to project air power over land. The Brits had an awful time in the Falklands, where they realized they all of the air power provided by their aircraft carriers just to provide air cover for their fleet. As a result, the relatively weak Argentinian air force was able to knock out several large British ships. It was a complete embarrassment for the UK--although they won the war they realized they were no longer able to project their might around the globe. Oddly enough, that time coincided with the ascension of the UK as the 51st state of the USA.

      --
      --Be human.
  26. Just need by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

    A tailhook kit for the ole' gulfstream.

  27. Someone call Larry Ellison! by Spacelord · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone call Larry Ellison! Would make a great addition to his MiG fighter jet.

    1. Re:Someone call Larry Ellison! by Demerara · · Score: 1

      Should increase his chances of winning the Americas Cup too.

      But only if they throw in a couple of SLCMs to take out the opposition.

      Come to think of it, how would he get it to Lake Geneva?

      --
      Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
    2. Re:Someone call Larry Ellison! by fockewulf · · Score: 1

      yeah, too bad he can't import it. he still hasn't gotten permission from ATF. He might've better luck with a British carrier though :)

    3. Re:Someone call Larry Ellison! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn somone else beat me to the larry ellison remark.
      Wonder how much it would cost to automate and strip down gear from war ship into civilan ship.

  28. Business Model by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

    1. Buy aircraft carrier for $4.5 M
    2. Refit with 200 luxury condos
    3. basketball courts on top, leave space for helipad
    4. Park near your favorite expensive city and sell units for $600 K each
    5. PROFIT !!!
    6. ???

    1. Re:Business Model by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      Why do you need a step after profit?.. =P

    2. Re:Business Model by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

      Just to keep the gnomes happy...

    3. Re:Business Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... Just park 12 miles off NYC and run a ferry service. You'd make a mint. 12 Mile commute to the big apple with, say, only $1200 a month in rent..plus what you would make charging rent to shops and stores...

      Huh.. no taxes, no inspections, I might just be willing to chip into something like that

    4. Re:Business Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >4. Park near your favorite expensive city and sell units for $600 K each
      >5. PROFIT !!!

      You forgot "...". It doesn't work without the "...".

  29. Only 4.5M USD? Cheap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll probably have to shell out way more than that for the surplus MiG-23 jets to stick up on the deck. Let's face it, this wouldn't be much fun with no planes.

  30. ESR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As much as ESR likes guns, this would be a great way to spend what's left of his IPO cash. Then he could launch air strikes at Redmond, Santa Cruz and Hollywood.

  31. weapon of mass destruction by koi88 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe George W. should buy it and write "Saddamz aircraft carria" on it. That should convince the few unpatriotic people who still doubt the justification for attacking Iraq.

    --

    I don't need a signature.
    1. Re:weapon of mass destruction by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Maybe George W. should buy it and write "Saddamz aircraft carria" on it. That should convince the few unpatriotic people who still doubt the justification for attacking Iraq.

      Since when does George W. talk like a Kennedy?

    2. Re:weapon of mass destruction by tycheung · · Score: 1

      No no no, Kennedy is from boston, it'd be like: "Saadaamz aacraft caarria"

    3. Re:weapon of mass destruction by Rick.C · · Score: 1
      Puhleeze! Iraq is so last month.

      Iran. Think "Iran."

      They're the one in the middle. Just remember the cheer:

      "Iraq, IRAN, Aff-ganna-STAN!"

      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    4. Re:weapon of mass destruction by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Why buy an old aircraft carrier when Sadam already has a number of modern Assad-class corvettes?

  32. Status! by davidc · · Score: 2, Funny
    Remember, once you got an aircraft carrier, you really somebody, you got status ! People will no longer think you are a pickled herring salesman, nossir!

    (Showing my age, with apologies to de voice of John Bird, played by de honorable Idi Amin Esq.)

  33. Apparently by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

    De-Commissioned November 2001, Sold to Private concerns 2002, Sale did not complete.

    Bin Laden gets sea sick

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  34. Linux? by gspr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does she run Linux?

    1. Re:Linux? by dropoffx · · Score: 1

      Figures, Goes up for sale now just when the Browser Wars are over.

      --
      This space for rent. Contact for our rates.
    2. Re:Linux? by Penguuu · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, SCO bought it to enforce their copyrights, but Linux users run when they see it :)

      --
      The problem in the world today is communication. Too much communication - Homer Simpson
    3. Re:Linux? by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      Does she run Linux?

      Not yet, but we're working on it. It also needs some case mods--battleship gray is just so 1970s, and it needs some windows. Maybe some neon lights would help, and we could use some go-faster stickers. I know some overclockers who are building a nuclear reactor for her now--none of this sissy diesel. They have promised me the case cooling issues are sorted out this time.

      Yes, we will have the 133test ship in the f133t.

      Oh, and can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these? /me ducks

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    4. Re:Linux? by jbardell · · Score: 1

      Imagine a beowulf cluster of these! ::rolls eyes:: :)

    5. Re:Linux? by hnwombat · · Score: 1

      No, but it'll run NetBSD, of course.

  35. Cool, but... by Scalli0n · · Score: 4, Funny

    As always, I must present the downside:

    1. Do you know how to drive an aircraft carrier? I don't think it has merely a gas/brake/steering wheel.
    2. Which country was going to let you bring that monstrosity into their port again...?
    3. Don't these things require a crew of 1000's? Or at least 100 people I'd imagine, more if something goes wrong!
    4. It costs me $20 to fill my car up at the gas station...dear god, I don't even want to think of this!!!

    But beyond that, a cool purchase to be sure. It would be even funnier if it were on ebay.

    --
    Sig & Below
    Yuck Fou
    1. Re:Cool, but... by Imperator · · Score: 1

      Who cares about fuel costs? What oil tanker is going to refuse to surrender their cargo to a friggin aircraft carrier?

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    2. Re:Cool, but... by jhines · · Score: 1

      From the listing:

      Navy crew of 1000, air crew of 300.

      Probably max crew, it probably can be run with a crew of a few hundred, several dozen to run x 3 shifts + support staff.

    3. Re:Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What oil tanker is going to refuse to surrender their cargo to a friggin aircraft carrier?
      The one that has half-a-dozen battleships assigned to it after the United States hears about your raid of the first one?
    4. Re:Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a /. related article..
      Build your own fission reactor, for fun and profit!

    5. Re:Cool, but... by Snowdog668 · · Score: 1

      How about parking it in international waters and declaring yourself an independent country? Hey, if Sealand can do it with an old WWII era platform why not? Now if I can just win the lottery this weekend...

      --
      I wouldn't say I'm a bad gambler but the last time I went to Vegas I even lost a buck on the soda machine.
    6. Re:Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that there aren't "half-a-dozen battleships" left in the whole world, that the US has a total of only FOUR of those that are left, ALL of those are in mothballs, and only TWO of the four are in a condition to be easily and quickly reactivated... ... I'd say that you're full of shit.

      FOAD, troll.

    7. Re:Cool, but... by DennyK · · Score: 1

      All of 'em, unless you have a fleet of aircraft with you. Aircraft carriers are essentially unarmed, and rely on their aircraft to provide cover for them.

      Of course, you could always ram them, but I wouldn't put much money on a WWII-era carrier surviving against a modern supertanker's hull... ;)

      DennyK

    8. Re:Cool, but... by MartyC · · Score: 1

      1. Do you know how to drive an aircraft carrier? I don't think it has merely a gas/brake/steering wheel.

      Absolutely not. It was built in England so has a clutch pedal too. ;)

      --
      -- "Sponges grow in the ocean. I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be if that didn't happen."
    9. Re:Cool, but... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Do you know how to drive an aircraft carrier? I don't think it has merely a gas/brake/steering wheel."

      No, it just has a "steering wheel" and a throttle (everything else is just bells and whistles). The hard parts are paralell parking (a/k/a "docking") and manning the engine room.

      "Which country was going to let you bring that monstrosity into their port again...?"

      Any, so long as you an afford the port charges.

      "Don't these things require a crew of 1000's? Or at least 100 people I'd imagine, more if something goes wrong!"

      This is why you should buy a modern ship instead. Unless you're also able to afford planes and their required crews (and/or intend to fill the CIC), automation can take care of most problems. Modern oil tankers (bigger than even modern US aircraft carriers) rarely need a crew of more than 30.

      "It costs me $20 to fill my car up at the gas station...dear god, I don't even want to think of this!!!"

      Aircraft carriers tend to carry more aircraft-grade kerosene more than fuel oil (I don't know what a gas-turbine carrier's fuel efficiency would look like, though). And fuel oil is cheap, even compared to gasoline and diesel fuel. You'll still need a little more than your average Suburban, but at least you'll be spending less than $1.00/gal.

    10. Re:Cool, but... by boskone · · Score: 1

      OK, I did some basic analysis.

      It holds3,196 tons of fuel oil for propulsion and has a range of 12,000 miles if you only travel at 14 knots.

      so (3196tons/12000miles)*(2000lbs/ton)*(1 gallon of oil/5 lbs)*(1 barrel of oil/42 gallons)* ($30/barrel for heating oil) = about $46/mile in oil costs. These are the rankest of estimates, but just to give you some idea.

      My idea involves converting it to nuclear steam power via an old russion sub reactor, then your fuel costs become $0. They dispose of them when they got too hot to fit in a sub, but with the size of this boat, you could afford to build some extra bulkheads and sheilding around it and run hot n safe.

      my friends and I want to buy it. We call our program "captain for a day".

  36. floating server farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Stay 20-30 miles off coast.

    Satellite internet access.

    Web hosting outside the borders (Or DMCA laws) of any nation.

    Isn't there an old oil rig that does this near britain?

    1. Re:floating server farm by heptapod · · Score: 1

      You are thinking of Sealand. Here's an interview with the owner of HavenCo which provides (provided?) offshore servers.

    2. Re:floating server farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea just think what you could do with a Beowulf cluster of these.

  37. Follow the hyperlinks... by SkArcher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and you will find that there is a charitable fund set up to buy this and turn her into a floating museum, as befits her place as the last surviving WW2 british aircraft carrier

    A lot less interesting than the 'world domination' plans, but then, this carrier is outdated and wouldn't last 2 minutes against a modern navy, hence why it is for public sale.

    --

    An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    1. Re:Follow the hyperlinks... by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Excellent idea... We could always use another Intrepid.

  38. Only one small problem... by Executive+Override · · Score: 1

    No remotely modern aircraft is capable of landing on it, because it's too small. That's why it was decommissioned.

    If I'm not mistaken, Brasil bought the last planes that were able to take off and land. They're all falling apart by now.

    1. Re:Only one small problem... by Phoenix · · Score: 4, Informative

      No remotely modern aircraft is capable to land on it?

      Wanna bet?

      There is one aircraft that not only can take off and land on it, -but- is also the only aircraft that is permitted to take off and land while *any* aircraft carrier is docked in port.

      Harrier Jump Jets are reasonably modern as I recall.

      With the angled ramp as it is (or even perhaps angled a little bit more) the AV8-B would be able to take off with a minimal amount of fuel and without using the Catapults. If I'm not too terribly mistaken the British are doing that for thier light carrier fleet - harriers included.

      Landings would be no problem - at least no more problem than a normal Carrier Landing (controled crash anyone?)

      Phoenix

      --
      -- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
    2. Re:Only one small problem... by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are actually two modern fighters that could easily land and take off. One is the Harrier as you mentioned. The other is the Joint Strike Fighter, which also has vertical T/O and landing capability...

    3. Re:Only one small problem... by bogidu · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you don't think about fighter jets for a minute, there are quite a few civilian STOL aircraft that could make use of it.

      examples:
      http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/pe rformance.htm l
      http://www.jupiteraircraft.co.za/
      http://www.p laneandpilotmag.com/content/specs/67ce ssna185.html

    4. Re:Only one small problem... by GMontag · · Score: 1

      Oh nonsense!

      I can take off and land a UH-1H on that thing all day.

      Black Hawk I can land a minimum of once.

      (never got Black Hawk rated, yea, kinda old)

    5. Re:Only one small problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The deck may not be thick enough for harriers. The UK's brand new HMS Ocean, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark all of which are about the size of our existing carriers can't take harriers due to their deck thickness. Would a WW2 carrier really be suitable?
      Although anyone know how much you can get a Zero, Coursair or any other ww2 carrier planes for? Failing that how about a squadroon of super cobra's or gazelles.

    6. Re:Only one small problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dad flew A-6's off The Coral Sea in the early 1970's. The Coral Sea is a contemporary of this Aircraft Carier and the A-6 is a remotely modern aircraft. A variant of the A-6 is still flown off of carriers. I am also aware that A-4's, F-4's, F-14's, and F-18's have also flown off of it.

      In World War II, they tended to over engineer things for robustness. I suspect that the deck of the carrier would be perfectly capeable of handling modern aircraft especially since it went through refits in modern times. I also noticed that the Brazillian Air Force flies quite a modern fleet of aircraft and the aaircraft which Brazill flew off of this ship were from their Air Force.

      As to the Harrier being the only modern aircraft capeable of flying off of a carrier in port, you forget about Helicopters. Most people in the Helicopter community would probably be upset that you didn't include their aircraft as aircraft. I'm not sure that most ports would alow flight ops from a carrier in port regardless.

    7. Re:Only one small problem... by tigga · · Score: 1
      The deck may not be thick enough for harriers.

      Are you sure? British WWII carriers did have armored decks. American carriers did have wooden decks..

      HMS Ocean is a Landing Platform, Helicopter ship.
      HMS Albion and Bulwark are Landing Platform Dock ships. They designed rather to haul marines, not strike aircraft.

      OK, take a look - http://www.hms.vengeance.btinternet.co.uk/skyhawk. htm
      there is A-4 landing and launching from that carrier.

    8. Re:Only one small problem... by PacoCheezdom · · Score: 1

      Actually, this aircraft carrier has an 'angled deck', not an 'angled ramp'.

      An angled deck means that the landing path is angled (15 or 30 degrees) from the centerline of the ship. In the picture, it's the part of the deck closest to the camera that juts out (the part that juts out even farther, at least, on an American carrier, is where the landing control guys watch the incoming planes-- it's either that or an elevator, it's hard to tell from the picture).

      This prevents an airplane that is aborting its landing from crusing down the deck and running into aircraft that are parked or are taking off at the front of the deck. This was a lesson learned from WWII-era straight-decked carriers, sometimes you can see for yourself what happens on shows on History Channel and such.

      Though it'd be interesting to see an unangled ramp :-) it doesn't really matter if it's the deck or a ramp on the deck that's angled, a Harrier could still easily take off, with its mystic ninja VSTOL powers.

    9. Re:Only one small problem... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Harrier Jump Jets are reasonably modern as I recall."

      Lovingly refered to as "Widowmakers." I'd rather take my chances on an F/A-18 and a Nimitz clas, thanks.

      Besides, the AV8-B is more of a ground-support fighter and not all that good at air superiority or interdiction. If it weren't for British "jump carriers," their ony customers would be the RMC and the USMC.

  39. Diamond Age.... by MrWa · · Score: 3, Funny

    So which billionaire Chinese man is going to buy this and raise thousands of orphan girls to raise into a karate-kicking, boot-toting army?

    1. Re:Diamond Age.... by CheechBG · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, with our luck the Scientologists will get their little grubby hands on it. Just what the world needs, a fake religious navy with a aircraft carrier.

    2. Re:Diamond Age.... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll all go hold a convocation (or whatever they call it) onboard, and some kindly 3rd world power will mistake it for a target. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  40. Cheap at the price! by spinlocked · · Score: 2, Funny

    $4.5m seems like a bargain until you tot up the running costs. Those admiralty drum boilers are thirsty beasts - HMS Belfast (a mere cruiser) had 4 of these, consuming ~26 tons of furnace fuel oil per hour at full steam. Plus of course the wages for your private army of mercenary sailors, uniforms, medals, rum, ex-soviet MiGs, an elaborate escape submarine - it soon adds up. It's not easy being an evil genius these days...

    --
    # init 5
    Connection closed.


    Oh... ...bugger.
  41. Scrap Metal by Superfreaker · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, most decomissioned ships that go up for sale are bought by metal scrap yards who recycle the materials. We'd like to think that some rich guys buys them and then goes sailing around in a battleship, but that is rarely (never?) the case.

    1. Re:Scrap Metal by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but this will actually be a good thing. For delicate scientific applications where increased background radiationis a problem old steel armor is needed because all steel made since WWII has increased radiation levels due to world wide fallout. I know most of the old battleship stock that one of the two companies that specialize in this has just about run out so scrapping off some of the armor from this thing might just help advance science =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Scrap Metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      L.Ron Hubbard bought a cruise ship to serve as the home base for Scientology. What a weirdo.

      http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos-0 7. html

  42. A new nation.... by TheOverlord · · Score: 1

    1. Buy carrier
    2. Float around Pacific picking up refugees
    3. Drop them off on the West coast
    4. ...
    5. Profit!

    wait...this sounds too familiar

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. This and the Rusan Space Shuttle! by SWTP_OS9 · · Score: 1

    Cool!

    Add a launcher for your Russan Space Shuttle Braun that was on sales a while back would be fun.

    What weapons are optional? Rats!

    Only a Opec member or M$ could aford to run this thing!

    1. Re:This and the Rusan Space Shuttle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its spelled "Buran" you insensitive clod. (The Russian space shuttle)

  45. Here, she was the proud of brazilian navy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and, why you call it "she"??? In portuguese it was a boy. They made a gender swap on it?

    1. Re:Here, she was the proud of brazilian navy by spickus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they cut off the phalanx.....

      --
      Indecision is the key to flexibility.
  46. Geek Cruise by SphynxSR · · Score: 1

    The new Geek Cruise anyone.

    --

    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  47. Serious proposal... by Uzull · · Score: 2, Funny

    set up a paypal account to gather the 4,5m USD, ship it to international waters, close to a big communication node, set up a server farm aboard of it, and say f... you to RIAA/DMCA/Whatever for the sake of freedom of speech and thinking !!! Of course no "illegal activities" like terrorism, drug trafficing etc.
    What do you think about it ?

    1. Re:Serious proposal... by orakle · · Score: 1

      Where do you find a large communication node in the middle of the ocean, smarty pants?

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; grep; mount; fsck; yes; more; fsck; umount; make clean; sleep
    2. Re:Serious proposal... by garrulous · · Score: 1

      I wish that were possible, but you'd need some business savvy guy who wants to make holocaust survival kits to pull the whole thing together.

    3. Re:Serious proposal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my PANTS!

    4. Re:Serious proposal... by Bradee-oh! · · Score: 3, Informative

      Where do you find a large communication node in the middle of the ocean, smarty pants?

      HavenCo, operating Six miles off the Eastern shore of Britain, smarty pants.

      --
      "This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
    5. Re:Serious proposal... by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Just off of the west african coast. I hear it's seriously underutilized due to government fuckups and they've got a shitty navy.

      Arr, that's the kind of piracy I'm for!

    6. Re:Serious proposal... by r_orourke · · Score: 1
      Of course no "illegal activities" like terrorism


      haha! That's funny. Under the current US administration, saying "f*ck you" to the RIAA/DMCA/Whatever practically does make you a terrorist.

    7. Re:Serious proposal... by philipgar · · Score: 1

      no no. . .you're only a terrorist if you pirate software or movies or music. People who do that are the next osama bin laden.
      phil

    8. Re:Serious proposal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That was my first thought.

      Then I realized that the RIAA would immediately call it a Pirate Ship and use the Shrubbery's war powers to sink it without warning.

    9. Re:Serious proposal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you find a large communication node in the middle of the ocean, smarty pants?

      HavenCo, operating Six miles off the Eastern shore of Britain, smarty pants.


      Nonsense... Havenco.com is operating from the US. You're buying into a hoax.

    10. Re:Serious proposal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple!

      You just do like the US and tap somebody elses.

      Sheesh, kids these days...

  48. Aircraft carrier HOWTOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    How to build an aircraft carrier:
    1. Acquire necessary parts and materials.
    2. Assemble.
    How to turn any boat into an aircraft carrier:
    1. Place aircraft on boat.
    How to sink an aircraft carrier:
    1. Make its average density greater than water.
    1. Re:Aircraft carrier HOWTOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How to turn any boat into an aircraft carrier:

      1. Place aircraft on boat.

      Please re-mod this as "Informative"!

    2. Re:Aircraft carrier HOWTOs by Grayswan · · Score: 1

      How to sink an aircraft carrier:

      Make its average density greater than water


      You can accomplish this easily by filling it with water. A typical method is to put a hole below the waterline.

      --
      If you open your mind too wide, people will throw trash in it.
  49. Scrap Metal Value by ddimas · · Score: 1

    I'd have to double check but I think the thing is worth more than $4.5 Million as scrap metal alone. This really is a deal for someone who can swing the financing.

  50. So who? by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

    My money is on a consortium of the RIAA, the MPAA and Microsoft to purcahase this...

    Pirates ahoy! All hands to battle stations!

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:So who? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      "This aircraft carrier is now the ultimate weapon in the cyberverse. I suggest we use it."

      "Don't be too proud of this marketing terror you've created. The power to destroy a college student with pirated songs is nothing compared to the power of a good chick flick."

  51. You think... by dentar · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I bought that aircraft carrier, then flew in on it dressed in a flight suit with the crotch all puffed up, people might be tricked into thinking -I- was a hero too?

    Thought not.

    --
    -- I am. Therefore, I think!
    1. Re:You think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      He was supposed to fly in the National Guard but went AWOL so he never did. The only reason he wasn't dishonorably discharged was his daddy's influence. He never flew in the military.

      His daddy on the other hand was a bomber pilot in WWII at the age of 18.

      You post proves that only those as ignorant as dubya support dubya.

    2. Re:You think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes sir, El Presidente Sir!

    3. Re:You think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should check your facts before you go bashing others. Bush DID fly with the guard for a few years and then was transferred to a new unit so that he could help a family friend with their election campaign. It appears that he didnt report to the new unit but did extra duty to make up for it after returning to his original unit a year later. Is he a coward? No. Is he a deserter? No. Did his influential family get him alot of perks and keep him out of the war? Yes. Think about it, would 95% of the soldiers in war prefer to serve in non combat places? Of course they would. If you had the power to keep your son or daughter safe by pulling strings you would. And at the time, not reporting for duty in the reserves wasn't a big deal.

    4. Re:You think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had the power to keep your son or daughter safe by pulling strings you would.

      If you are in the business of sending thousands of other people's sons and daughters into war, it would be despicable to try and keep your own son/daughter out of the war.

      But, hey, I suppose we can't expect anything better from the Bush family.

    5. Re:You think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...reporting for duty...

      Do you know the meaning of the word duty? it means sometimes having to do things that aren't safe and you or your loved ones don't want to do but still do anyway because they need to be done. Getting out of going to combat when everyone else got their number called is not doing your duty. Face it Bush hiding out in the Nation Guard while better men then him went off to combat is as bad as Clinton smoking reefer in England when his number got called.

    6. Re:You think... by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

      Or the Clinton Family. Or the Gore Family. (Gore was a photographer in vietnam with a detachment of 12 Marine bodyguards)- face it, if you want someone for president, he ain't gonna be a war hero if he's from a successful family.

    7. Re:You think... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      tell that to every other serviceman who entered the Guard. Despise Bush for going AWOL, not for joining the Guard.

      How about all those hippies who fled to Canada and were all pardoned afterwards? Hmm... Talk about cowards... I'd rather have rotted in jail for my beliefs than be known as an American Coward. (With the caveat that I was born after the Saigon fell...) :-/

  52. I'd go for something a little more fuel efficient by blair1q · · Score: 5, Funny

    Capacity: 3,196 Tons ...
    Endurance: 12,000 Nautical miles @ 14 Knots, 6,200 Nautical Miles @ 25 Knots


    So that's roughtly 4 nm/ton city, 2 highway.

    Great for running around town, but where would you park it?

  53. We Should Buy It !!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the users of Slashdot could pitch in and buy the vessel. We could rename it the "SS \." and make it run Linux. I'm going to draw up the plans right now using MS Paint.

    1. Re:We Should Buy It !!!! by physicsnerd · · Score: 1
      See "I'm In" post above. Are you willing to throw in $300 with us?

      physicsnerd

  54. Floating Datacenter - Mock RIAA by Elik · · Score: 1

    One of the great ideas about it is that if you convert it into a floating datacenter, you can make good money off it. Like making it a haven for people who want to host contents without having to worry about being ganked off line, because you will be in the international waters, which no laws can touch you. And you can charge a bundle for it.

    As for the internet connection, simple. Just get a tap into one of those underground pipes as your permanent connection and you be set. Plus due to the sheer size of that thing, it would be nearly stable and rock solid.

    --
    -- Amazing how the Internet still humms along.... -- Dispite all the flaws of Micro$oft in their software!
    1. Re:Floating Datacenter - Mock RIAA by Tensor · · Score: 1

      A good idea, but only for satellite internet.

      Keeping a ship still in one place is an INCEDIBLY hard thing to do needing specialized engines pointing in all directions and a computer control. Sadly none of this is equiped on an aircraft carrier which is designed for exactly the opposite, keep moving fast to help planes take off and land.

      Keeping a ship this big in a same spot is even harder beacause it sits quite high on the water and all that metal surfaces act as huge sails moving the ship.

      Another idea could be to place some buoys hooked to the cable with microwave anteannae pointed to the ship (everywhere around actually, like an omni anntenna), that way the carrier would be able to move a bit, and rotate with the wind, and still manange to get some antennas pointed to the buoys.

  55. This story has a strange twist . . . by GMontag · · Score: 1

    It *probably* has an extensive communications system already.

    Also, popular literature supplies some great ideas for other applications.

  56. Re:Business Model - Already Done by Superfreaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Our crazy NY mayor Bloomberg is actually doing this already. He is taking old cruise ships and outfitting them for low-income housing.

    I just hope they got rid of those silly hyper-contaigious diseases that were going around. Some 409 surface cleaner should do it. Well, a lot actually.

  57. Brazilian navy still strong by TrekkieGod · · Score: 2, Funny

    They still have 1 (one) aircraft carrier remaining...The "São Paulo".

    But, heck, who needs aircraft carriers when you can have this baby?

    LOL...and before the flame war starts...please understand this is just a joke. The list of other ships still commissioned is quite impressive.

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    1. Re:Brazilian navy still strong by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      And this baby goes easier on fuel, too...

    2. Re:Brazilian navy still strong by omaco · · Score: 1

      Speaking as an inflammable Brazilian, it turns out that the "Minas Gerais" was, in fact, a national joke in Brazil when it was bought by the Brazilian Navy in 1960.... I was 8 at the time, when I saw it in Rio, and I clearly remember that Brazilians saw it as a me-too imitation of the US Navy, which had the real carriers, not this toy version. I mean, what were the Brazilians going to do with it? Invade Argentina?

    3. Re:Brazilian navy still strong by bluehand · · Score: 1

      hehe
      as I'm a Brazilian i can explain the reason for a 3 mast sailship (frigate)
      it's used in the training for the kadets
      and when they complete the training they do an around-the-world trip in this ship
      she has never been a combat ship as you can shurely undestand why :)
      its only cannons are for warning and celebartion shots (47mm cannons cant sink squat)

  58. darn it by Shutup+Now · · Score: 0

    an aircraft carrier?? DARN IT!! i wanted a nuclear submarine... wake me up when someone starts selling those...

  59. So... COOL! by LeoDV · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, if someone gave me $4,500,010 right now I would buy an aircraft carrier and a lot of candy.

    A way to make it profitable would be to go around the world and offer paying tours. Or even cruises (though that would require a lot of people...) Enough to supply the fuel, pay back the loan you took out to buy it and fit it with enough computers and a network to run it all from the bridge, but most of all, have the COOLEST HOUSE ON EARTH.

    ...so...COOL...

    1. Re:So... COOL! by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      ...but most of all, have the COOLEST HOUSE ON EARTH.

      Sure, it seems that way now--but have you ever owned a house? Have you ever had to paint it?

      Do you want to have to slap a coat of paint on the outside of this baby every few years? I suppose if you have kids, you can make them do it.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  60. Stromberg by payndz · · Score: 1

    But can the bows split open and swallow up ballistic missile subs?

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  61. Bring good things to life by baldass_newbie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is there a corporation rich enough to become a "super power"?

    GE accounts for 1% of the US GDP and it's about the biggest F'ing company in the world (in terms of dollars and diversity) AND they make weapons systems.
    So, I'd say 'No'.

    Of course, they could kick France's ass, but then, so did Greenpeace.

    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
    1. Re:Bring good things to life by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1% of the largest economy in the world is not exactly chump change. I'm sure GE is comparable to some of the smaller third-world countries, at least. I agree that that doesn't make them a superpower, and they aren't going to commit any acts of conquest while they're still part of the US, but it's not as impossible as it was a while ago.

      (And let's not forget the British East India Company, which effectively owned the lower half of Asia for a while.)

    2. Re:Bring good things to life by GMontag · · Score: 1

      Well, if GE built whole aircraft carriers, they could pull a "Drax"(sp?) deal and make one for themselves like he made that spair Space Shuttle.

      But if they break it, stealing one already delivered would be trickier than stealing a Shuttle.

      All of the above is conjecture from viewing the documentry "Moonraker".

    3. Re:Bring good things to life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rich corporations don't count, don't you know? Only poor, impoverished dark-skinned people have virtue.

      Therefore, any comparison between poor, dark-skinned people and anything else is ultimately racist and imperialist and lots of other things too!

    4. Re:Bring good things to life by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Uh, the French sank one Rainbow Warrior, and it wouldn't surprise me if they did it again.

      Exocet means not having to say you're sorry.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:Bring good things to life by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      GM (General Motors) is the largest company in the world

      Hence my use of the word 'about' and the phrase 'one of' and qualified it all with both money earned and diversity of products.
      GM only makes cars as far as I know, considering how they spin off divisions (e.g. EDS, Mopar, Delphi)
      But hey, at least you felt you could contribute and that should count for something.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    6. Re:Bring good things to life by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      Crazy thing about Moonraker, remember the glass crystal that was used to hold the gas that was going to kill people? The diagram of it clearly shows it was being made by Venini the premier glassmake in Venice.
      My wife worked for their U.S. distributorship for a while.
      Oh well, it's OT, but I always thought it pretty crazy that Drax was using an outside vendor that never bothered to ask why he need all of these vials or that might have gotten suspicious.

      Even more OT, didn't the pass code to the lab sound like Close Encounters?

      Bah, it's late and I'm rambling. Off to bed.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    7. Re:Bring good things to life by GMontag · · Score: 1

      My wife worked for their U.S. distributorship for a while.

      I knew you were connected with the CIA! If I remember, your wife was pretty hot in that documentry too :-)

      Oh well, it's OT, but I always thought it pretty crazy that Drax was using an outside vendor that never bothered to ask why he need all of these vials or that might have gotten suspicious.

      We need them for this big project for "uncle", plus they look nice in some of our lanterns and, hey, if you ask any more questions we are going to LASER you.

      Even more OT, didn't the pass code to the lab sound like Close Encounters?

      Yep!

    8. Re:Bring good things to life by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      GM does mean 'Go Mopar', but they did not spin off Mopar, as Mopar is, and always been owned by Chrysler, as they make Chrysler parts. Perhaps you meant AC/Delco?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    9. Re:Bring good things to life by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2, Informative
      "1% of the largest economy in the world is not exactly chump change. I'm sure GE is comparable to some of the smaller third-world countries, at least."

      FYI: As of July 2000, according to Fortune Magazine, GE Corp. has the 40th largest economy in the world.

      This is still smaller than Toyota, Exxon-Mobil, the big US Automobile makers, Wal Mart, Finland, Saudi Arabia and Poland.

      But it is larger than Portugal, Venezuela, Iran, Israel, Egypt, IBM, Volkswagon and AT&T.

      And GE is only 2.6X bigger than the 100th largest economy. But I do believe you're right in saying that 1% of it is similar to some small 3rd world nation.

    10. Re:Bring good things to life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "GM only makes cars as far as I know"

      Perhaps, but the GMAC division makes all the profits in Mortgages, insurance, real estate and banking.

    11. Re:Bring good things to life by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 1

      GE? C'mon! You can do better. General Electric is only ranked 9th on the Global 500 list. Wal-Mart is number one and by a large margin. Now an aircraft carrier with that Wal-Mart Happy face painted on the side is what I'd really like to see.

    12. Re:Bring good things to life by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      GM only makes cars as far as I know,

      A long time ago, GM used to make appliances. I've seen some old GM refrigerators (60's vintage).

    13. Re:Bring good things to life by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      You're right. I should know this as I park near the Chrysler plant in Newark on Mopar Drive.
      Oh well, it was late, I was bitter.
      Thanks for the correction.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
  62. L. Bob Rife. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now all we need is an L.Bob Rife to buy it.

    1. Re:L. Bob Rife. by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny

      "L. Bob Rife" who creates his own religion and navy? Neal Stephenson was lucky that $cientology didn't sue him for violating their IP.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  63. I heard RIAA was going to buy it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems that no matter how many Congress members they buy, the capabilities of the Pentagon remain out of reach. Much to the dismay of RIAA, not a single P2P user has been hit with a laser-guided bomb. The day may come when RIAA passes a law and can't get the level of enforcement they would like. The logical conclusion would be to buy an aircraft carrier! After all, what is the point of establishing a government without the firepower to assert its authority?

    This purchase would give them the ability to launch airstrikes against P2P users. Of course, a vast area is beyond the range of carrier-launched aircraft. Their next step will be to buy a missile base and ICBMs from North Korea. This will enable them to wipe out the rest of their customer base.

    I guess the geek thing to do would be to start shopping for a submarine.

  64. Minas Gerais ? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    I can't find that on my Middle Earth map.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:Minas Gerais ? by omaco · · Score: 1

      Try looking on your map of Brazil Earth Map. It is a state of the United States of Brazil. I kid you not.

    2. Re:Minas Gerais ? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      No, I believe you. I'm curious what the name translates to, Google's language tools were no help. (Then again, I don't know the exact original meanings of Toronto and Ontario .. er .. and Canada. :^)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Minas Gerais ? by omaco · · Score: 1

      Minas Gerais translates as "General Mines".... pretty boring, eh? Minas=mines, as in Tolkien, and Gerais=general as in ' the whole state is generally full of mines."

  65. Interesting? Off-topic, more like. by solarrhino · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This carrier does have a catapult. Who cares what other carriers do or do not have?

    --
    "Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
  66. Rewind 1 year... by tiluki · · Score: 1
  67. Re:I'm In by dfeist · · Score: 1

    Please let's start discussing what we build on that - do we want anachy? Minarchy? Or just a plain democratic state with a constitution? Communism?
    I'm voting for anarchy.

    --
    Unix makes easy tasks hard and hard tasks possible. Windows makes easy tasks easy and hard tasks $29.95.
  68. New HQ for Micro$oft by nicotinix · · Score: 1

    You know, BG must be thinking about that.

  69. Easier way by Imperator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Get your former CEO elected as Vice President of the United States.

    --

    Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    1. Re:Easier way by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      Get your former CEO elected as Vice President of the United States.

      Yeah, but then you'd have to give him $20 million just before he takes office. Not that it'd be a bad investment...

    2. Re:Easier way by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Get your former CEO elected as Vice President of the United States.

      Elected? Not really!

  70. Accessories by malloci · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it comes with ammo and planes, or if not could you throw them in with some package deal for say, and extra 500k?

    Then you wouldn't have to even worry about docking into a harbor, just take your own jet to the mainland for the day ;)

  71. Aircraft carrier eh? by mog007 · · Score: 1

    If guys that drive big cars are compensating for small... packages, what could be said about the poor b@st@rd that buys this thing?

  72. What's in YOUR wallet?! by Mulletproof · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't forget all those hidden fees when buying this carrier.

    -Insurance (Ow.)
    -Crew (you could get away with under a crew of thousand without aircraft and weapondry, I'm sure)
    -Supplies
    -Fuel (that's gonna kill ya)
    -Licencing (I'm sure the government isn't just gonna let you run around with a spare carrier without some sort of tax)
    -ATM fee

    I don't care if it is only 4.5 mil. You're gonna have to have deeeep pockets just for upkeep, let alone taking it out for a spin... And you can stop with the Neal Stephenson jokes now. They've all been taken.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:What's in YOUR wallet?! by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      Gates Will buy it, just watch. Then he will take over the world politically in addition to economically.

    2. Re:What's in YOUR wallet?! by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why does everyone assume you need a crew of thousands for this thing. My dad was on an ore carrier that was larger than this and it had a crew of 23. And that crew included 3 cooks! Running and even maintaining this thing shouldn't take many people at all. Now operating the flight deck and maintaining a squadron of aircraft would take a bunch but just the ship would take a couple dozen tops.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:What's in YOUR wallet?! by dimension6 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure whoever purchases this fine vessel will beach it. My guess is a museum will buy it (with private funding perhaps) and put it on display out of the water (or docked, as the USS Intrepid is, which has been docked on Manhattan for over 20 years).

    4. Re:What's in YOUR wallet?! by still+cynical · · Score: 1

      Yes, but your dad's ship was almost entirely cargo hold. We're talking about a ship designed and built to carry over a thousand people. Berthing, food storage, waste systems, etc. on a vastly larger scale than even a supertanker. Even if you don't use most of it, these items are all part of larger systems and have to be maintained. So, while you could eliminate all of the weapons and combat-related crews, along with a large percentage of the positions dedicated to serving a large crew, you've still got a LOT more people than a cargo ship or tanker designed to carry only a few dozen.

      --
      Ignorance is the root of all evil.
  73. Batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are batteries included?

  74. Let's get an aircraft carrier! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

    "It's only a model."

    "Shhh!"

  75. "What are we going to do today, Brain?" by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The same thing we do every day, Pinky, try to take over the world."

  76. This thread is beat by CrazyJim0 · · Score: 1

    I jumped in my beat car, beat this scene, and headed out to a bar. I met this fly girl sitting next to my seat, I told her sit and twirl then I found out my cars not the only thing thats beat.

    Stay away from those bar women, they're evil

  77. Aricraft *Carrirr*, not flyer by AlecC · · Score: 2, Funny

    Back in abot 1971 I saw this ship at anchor in Rio harour. i was told by my Brazilian host that the first aircraft launched from the flight deck by the Brazilians had gone down, not up - and splashed. Since then, no pilot brave enough to have a second try had been found.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  78. Re:I'd go for something a little more fuel efficie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Great for running around town, but where would you park it?"

    Wherever the hell you liked. Is this a tank joke?

  79. Gives IRC Admins a new option by Tukz · · Score: 0

    Welcome to IRC
    !Ping Pong!

    Feel free to do as you want,
    we don't punish our users with AKILLS.

    We have a AIRCRAFT CARRIER we use insted,
    to smash up your entire neighbourhood.

    Have a nice day.

    --
    - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
  80. Re:I'm In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I vote for leftist-libertarianism (people do whatever the hell they want, business gets the shaft). Also, the boat should be given a name with swear words in it ("Welcome aboard the SS Cuntfucker, Mr. President."), so the US media can't talk about us on television.

    May I also suggest that we adopt "Hymn to Red October" as the national (aircraftcarrieral?) anthem?

  81. I'm so sorry... by CustomFort · · Score: 1

    But, Can you imagine a Beowolf Cluster of these?

  82. Sh..... Don't give MS any ideas now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep this quiet. It's chump change for Chairman Gates to buy this puppy and man this thing to scare the Germans or anyone who is gona switch to Linux!

  83. Too small by fm6 · · Score: 1
    Sorry, not the Enterprise. Tiny thing, no nuclear plant.

    I've actually been on the flight deck of another carrier from that same era. Boggles the mind that anybody would even try to land a plane on such a tiny place.

    1. Re:Too small by shogun · · Score: 1

      I remember being on the deck of the HMAS Melbourne which is of the same class as this one ages ago, I didn't think its 700' flight deck was a 'tiny place' but then I guess its all relative....

  84. Wow, that's cheaper than a lot of houses here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe an aircraft carrier is what we need to drive down SF bay area housing values.

  85. Am I alone? by Xeth · · Score: 1

    Was anyone else expecting an eBay link? I was sure hoping for one...

    --
    If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
  86. Just off the wire . . . by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

    . . . the Principality of Sealand now has a navy.

    --

    Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  87. Re:Business Model - Already Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    low-income housing
    hyper-contaigious diseases


    In NY City we like to let these problems take care of themselves (wink wink).

  88. It's already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Texas oil industry bought the United States government already.

    1. Re:It's already been done by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      really??? when was that? how'd we get it back? i knew Gray Davis was cutting more from my education than necessary!

  89. Now all I want to now... by littleRedFriend · · Score: 2, Funny

    before buying this baby. Would Redmond be in missile range lying infront of the coast of Vancouver?

    --
    IANAL, but imagine a beowulf cluster of in Soviet Russia all your belong are base to us welcoming the new SCO overlords.
    1. Re:Now all I want to now... by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      I would be more worried that someone in redmond might have the spare cash lying around to buy it ( you know who ). God only knows what it will be used for then...

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
  90. Credit by balthan · · Score: 1

    Would you then have a GNU/Aircraft Carrier?

    Credit where credit's due. Afterall, where would carriers be without Stallman?

  91. Buy it for Canada! by farrellj · · Score: 4, Funny

    We haven't had a carrier since the Bonaventure!!!! Please donate and help us out!

    ttyl
    Farrell

    --
    CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
    1. Re:Buy it for Canada! by psyconaut · · Score: 1

      I'll chip in a toque, a case of Blue, and $20. :-)

      Actually, I suspect one of the reasons it's for sale from a Canadian firm is that US firms couldn't/wouldn't touch it?

      -psy

    2. Re:Buy it for Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could put it in a mall. You crazy Canadians...

    3. Re:Buy it for Canada! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Look on the bright side: At least you're not New Zealand! And when all is said and done, even the "lowly" RCN can still point and laugh at the People's Army-Navy.

      And then there are the countries that have aircraft carriers and wish they didn't. I think the recent big push in the Fench navy for stealth is so that nobody will notice their CVN Charles de Gaulle.

  92. YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would so buy that if I had the money. Talk about a great place to have parties...

  93. Re:Nice Price (little footnote) by pnorthover · · Score: 1

    "scrap value"

    Razor blades and automobiles perhaps. When the aircraft carrier HMCS Bonaventure was scrapped in the early '70s, the story was that it came back to Canada in the form of Datsuns... whose bodies seemed to rust away while you watched. All that prior exposure to salt water...

  94. Haggle.. by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

    Throw in a Harrier and I'll take it off your hands for $4.000.000...

    (Just think of the best sig you've read)

    --
    home
  95. It must be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a beowulf...

  96. Re:I'd go for something a little more fuel efficie by l810c · · Score: 1
    3196 tons
    2000 lb's/ton
    6392000 lb's
    ~7.5 gallons/lb
    852266 gallons
    $1.25 gallon
    $1,065,333 to fill-er-up

    Oh yea, that's also $625/mile city $1250/mile highway.
    Is she still in Brazil? That's ~5000 miles from NY,NY.

  97. heh by machine+of+god · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else find it funny that a company called French Creek Boat Sales is selling an aircraft carrier?

  98. $4,500,000, 6 million Slashdot users - chip in! by TekPolitik · · Score: 4, Funny

    One Aircraft Carrier: $4,500,000.
    Slashdot registered users: 6,000,000.
    Online geek community with own aircraft carrier: Priceless.

    1. Re:$4,500,000, 6 million Slashdot users - chip in! by frackyfreak · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess that will bring new meaning to: "slashdoting the server" ouch.

  99. A Concorde is going to the Smithsonian by rahulnair · · Score: 1

    Air France is donating one of is Concorde's to the Smithsonian

    1. Re:A Concorde is going to the Smithsonian by ViVeLaMe · · Score: 1

      it has been cancelled.
      The concorde-to-be-donated will in fact fly the Statue Of Liberty back to France, by request of moronic USKAians.

      --
      i had a sig, once..
  100. Re:Nice Price (little footnote) by T-Ranger · · Score: 5, Informative
    Both of the people who I have talked to who served abord Bonni' mentioned that it seemed to rust away while you watched when it was in service.

    For whatever reason, durring construction its hull sat around for something like 5 years for budgetarty reasons. At least 2 or 3 of its sister hulls diddnt get out of the construction phase.

  101. Not New York Harbor ... by mec · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... Puget Sound.

    Okay, now somebody make the joke about Battleships and Windows NT, please.

    1. Re:Not New York Harbor ... by Rick.C · · Score: 2, Funny
      Okay, now somebody make the joke about Battleships and Windows NT, please.

      A new Midshipman with only one foot hops into a battleship. The bartender says, "What'll you have sailor?"

      "Windows, no tomato," replies the Middie.

      The bar-keep mixes up something and slides it down the bar. "Hey! This is a Blue-screen-of-death," protests the Middie. "I ordered a Windows, no tomato."

      The bartender looks the sailor straight in the eye and says, "Inaccessable boot device."

      Karma: worse than it was a few minutes ago.

      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    2. Re:Not New York Harbor ... by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      It's late and I got no sleep...but I just don't get it.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    3. Re:Not New York Harbor ... by luzrek · · Score: 1
      http://lists.essential.org/1998/am-info/msg03829.h tml

      The USS Yorktown, has been disabled several times by windows networking errors. Basically, Microsoft doesn't make products that are up to Military Specifications.

      --

      Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.

  102. Re:I'd go for something a little more fuel efficie by Stigmata669 · · Score: 2, Funny

    am I the only person who read that as 4 nanometers/ton? I heard about $100 toilet seats, but ... wow.

    --
    Yawn.
  103. With This... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    and some of Moller's aircars outfitted with cruise missiles, I CAN RULE THE WORLD!

    Oh, wait, Bush is already...

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  104. Goodness.. by thanq · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these?

    1. Re:Goodness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, its called Pearl Harbor.

  105. Can I take it for a test drive? by gilesjuk · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well I want to see if it runs well :)

    1. Re:Can I take it for a test drive? by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      It doesn't run, it floats.

      Sorry, I'll just digress now.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  106. Oh man, if only... by jlanthripp · · Score: 1
    ...I had 4.5 million bux

    And a trailer to haul it on
    And a Ford Excursion to pull it with
    And a boat ramp at Lake Allatoona big enough to put this baby in the water

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  107. Cheap! by psyconaut · · Score: 1

    Seriously, $4,500,000 is pretty damn reasonable!

    It'd make one hell of a floating hoteI actually imagine there are lots of geeks who pay big $$$ to go on an aircraft carrier theme vacation ;-)

    -psy

  108. Re:I'm In by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    I'm voting for anarchy, too... as odd as that sounds.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  109. Actually... by kikta · · Score: 1

    The Marine Corps only asked that the JSF be STOVL (Short Take Off/Vertical Landing). You are correct about this carrier being able to handle it, though. It could also carry quite a few helos, as well.

    1. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, and that's why Boeing designed their submission as STOVL. Lockheed Martin, who won the contract, designed their aircraft to be VTOVL.

      So, the JSF is VTOVL.

    2. Re:Actually... by kikta · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Try again. The JSF (F-35B) is STOVL. Check your facts next time...

  110. Re:I'm In by Jellybob · · Score: 1

    Well... if it's gonna be the SS /. we should have a government that is randomly re-selected every day, and only has 5 votes to use in whatever issues it sees fit.

    And just to keep things consistent, no one can make any sort of useful comment in meetings of government, but must instead shout a single word description of what they would have said, had they been allowed to.

    They will also be barred from any further discussion of the issue.

  111. the ship has been sold, please call again! by waldo2020 · · Score: 1

    from this link - it looks like it been sold. perhaps the editors should read more carefully. http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/vengeance/Costs. html

  112. The plot thickens... by Barkmullz · · Score: 1


    Minas Gerais = I'm Iran's Sage

    I'd stay away from this one...

    --
    Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
  113. Logical applications by zakezuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Application #1: With current issues regarding DMCA laws and a whole bunch of bogusness... I'm rather shocked someone isn't considering buying such a beast in order to start up an off shore server in international waters. Pirate telivision / radio would also be a logical application.

    Application #2: Organizations such as Green Peace need boats in order to get around and block access. This is a big boat.

    Application #3: Off shore power plant. Production of things like hydrogen or other fuels.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    1. Re:Logical applications by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Greenpeace could really take on the Japanese whalers with this thing.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  114. always low prices by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 1

    Walmart accounts for almost 2.5% of the US GDP.

    --
    Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
    1. Re:always low prices by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      What? Walmart doesn't 'make' anything. They don't account for squat. Walmart without the US would be pointless since they're just middlemen.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:always low prices by David+Price · · Score: 1

      Actually, 'production' means more than manufacturing. The amount of production accomplished during some step in the economic chain from raw material to consumer is the "value added" - the difference in prices between the materials and the finished product.

      Example: I am a widget maker. I buy widget parts from suppliers, and I pay workers to assemble those parts into widgets, which I then sell to distributors. If I pay 60 cents for the parts, and then sell the widgets for a dollar, then I have added 40 cents of value per widget. (Rationale: the parts came in valued on the open market at sixty cents; they left my facility valued at a dollar. The difference can be accounted for by the value I've added as a result of my operations.) The GDP therefore increases by 40 cents times the number of widgets I sell.

      Wal-Mart does not manufacture anything, but they do add value: they perform the services of distribution, stocking, shelving, storage, and so forth. The total value Wal-Mart adds to the economy is its gross margin - the amount of its sales minus the amount of money it spent purchasing the goods it resold. For 2002, this figure was $54,687,000,000. (source: Wal-Mart 2003 annual report) For comparison, the 2002 US GDP was $9,439,900,000,000 (source: Bureau of Economic Analysis).

      This means that Wal-Mart was responsible for 0.56% of the production in the American economy in 2002. The original poster's mistake was to use their net sales figure of $244,524,000,000. That number is indeed 2.6% of the US GDP - very close to the quoted figure. However, $191,838,000,000 of that is the cost of goods sold by Wal-Mart (the money they paid to purchase those goods), and represents production by other entities besides Wal-Mart.

    3. Re:always low prices by Whyrph · · Score: 1

      They're not middle-men, they're end-men. The final retail sale of a product is what counts for GDP.

    4. Re:always low prices by David+Price · · Score: 1

      Adding up retail sales is a convenient way to calculate GDP (the retail price of an item is equal to the total value of the production that went into making it), but you have to be careful not to think of the retailers' sales figures as being entirely the retailers' contribution to GDP. It is true that retailers add production to the GDP figure, but they're also serving as a proxy to consumers for the production of the items' manufacturers, plus the those manufacturers' part suppliers, plus those suppliers' suppliers, all the way down to the companies that actually extracted the natural resources that make up the items sold.

    5. Re:always low prices by rcs2 · · Score: 1

      Which means Wal-mart spends one out of every fifty dollars in the U.S. in a year. Damn!

      --
      This is not a signature.
    6. Re:always low prices by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      I knew that 2.5% figure was bunk, thank you for de-bunking. I just meant that, compared to a company like GE, Walmart couldn't 'set up shop' somewhere else and declare themselves a separate nation. They would have nothing to export, since their entire business relies on sitting between manufacturers and consumers and charging their 20%. Keeping all of their assets in the US and trying to export their profits to Wal-Mart-Land would just get them declared a 'terrorist' state by the US gov't and their stores would be sold to the highest bidder.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    7. Re:always low prices by benjamindees · · Score: 1
      middle-man

      You'll have to agree that, with the advent of the web, it's entirely possible for manufacturers to sell directly to consumers. Anyone between the two, including retailers, has to be considered extraneous, no matter how useful their services.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  115. What about a floating city of sin? by theCat · · Score: 1

    Retrofit it as a floating nation/state/casino/whorehouse, then steam it around the planet. The worlds largest traveling party, off shore bank and criminal retreat. Fly in lounge lizards, escaping dictators and rich socialites right onto the flight deck in helicopters. Never go to port so nobody gets arrested; justice of the high seas. Captain hangs anyone who doesn't pay their gambling debts. Service it with freighters and fuel tenders. When it gets too old to float, sink it (along with the ex-dictators who can't go ashore) and start all over.

    Someone will do it. Saddam and his kids could pay cash and invite all their cronies.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
  116. Ummmm... by pjt48108 · · Score: 1

    My question is, "Why did/does Brazil need an aircraft carrier?" Aren't such things needed by nations who would fear other nations trying to muscle in on 'em? I mean, hey, who REALLY wants to go to Brazil and stay?

    I can't imagine Brazil having need for such a ting. Maybe that's why they got rid of it. I certainly hope they didn't spend MORE money and a fancier ship that they don't need, seeing as Brazil ain't the richest of nations (or the free-est, for that matter), and really doesn't face a threat of imminent invasion. Seems they have better things to spend money on than aircraft carriers.

    Anyhow... Anyone who buys this had better be planning on moving in for the long haul. They also better be rich as fuck, and with a healthy incoming cash flow, as you would need to hire LOTS of people to crew this thing and to maintain it, regardless of whether it ever went out to sea again or not. I wonder if the US will actually allow it to be sold--or should I say, perhaps, 'delivered." I guess one way to get attention from Uncle Sam, if you want it, would be to buy an old aircraft carrier.

    --
    Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
    1. Re:Ummmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Brazil ain't the richest of nations (or the free-est, for that matter),"

      Man, do you at least know Brazil to say that? Really sad to see that education, even in the "rich free countries" is going down to the drain...

    2. Re:Ummmm... by pjt48108 · · Score: 1

      I would say, given the number of homeless children, society's unwanted, that there are down there, and how they are mistreated, that, yeah, freedom is a scarce commodity.

      --
      Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
    3. Re:Ummmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does poverty has to do with freedom? Aren't you confusing dictatorship with it?

  117. Imagine a beowulf cluster of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sigh...

  118. maintenance by JoeRobe · · Score: 1

    Just out of curiosity, do any Navy/AF fans out there know what sort of maintenance would be required for this thing?

    i.e. what would need to be done to keep it afloat and operational, and how much would that cost (ballpark)?

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
    1. Re:maintenance by Pooua · · Score: 1
      what would need to be done to keep it afloat and operational, and how much would that cost (ballpark)?

      I worked in the engine room of a ship that is almost as long but not as wide as this aircraft carrier. We had 9 people assigned to the Engine Room, a few more assigned to the boiler room (I don't know how many--maybe 12?), a couple of people down in Evaps... We took water level readings on our feed and potable water tanks every half-hour, besides checking a dozen oil flow gauges and steam turbine RPMs. The main air ejector had to be taken apart and new gaskets applied every 2 or 3 years, I think, and all the scores of other valves in the Engine Room had to be lubricated every few months. The bilges had to be flushed of water (and oil) a few times a day (just turn on the bilge eductor, if you don't mind dumping oily water overboard). Condensing water has to be mopped up pretty constantly when the ship is underway, as well as any oil leaks. Vacuum pressure on the turbo generator condensors and the main propulsion turbine condensor must be monitored continuously when in operation. Electrical voltages must be monitored to maintain tolerances, and the turbo generators have to maintain their RPMs within tolerances (checked every hour).

      In addition to the fairly ordinary, daily tasks, there are quarterly or annual tasks, like cleaning the soot out of the boilers. This task was cited by the Navy as one of the main problems in getting Boiler Techs to re-enlist. I suspect this is a reason the Navy has eliminated the BT rate by combining it with the Machinist Mate rate. Now, when someone doesn't make it to Nuke school, they can truly go to the lowest level of Hell on Earth.

      This is in addition to all the other parts of the ship: the ship's galley, the catapult on the flight deck, navigation, radio room, anchor room, elevators, steering...

      I have no idea what all this would cost, except a lot.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
  119. Seems Cheap by objwiz · · Score: 1

    That seems really cheap ($4.5 USD) for boat of that size and function.


    Check out these prices for a variety of boats for sale. $4.5 mil buys a much smaller in some cases.

  120. make it a floating floating hotel by Kegetys · · Score: 1

    Would make a nice floating hotel, change the insides into apartments, put a few pools on the deck and maybe a go kart track or something :P

  121. Helicopters are aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, helicopters are aircraft.

  122. European definition of "free" by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hmmmm. This must be some new, European definition of "free" that hasn't yet spread to the US.

    Shhhh! You're supposed to pretend that it's the United States which has been trying for centuries to become a fascist, totalitarian empire, and Europe which is trying desperately to preserve Western civilization. It's the new fad, you see.

    ASA

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    1. Re:European definition of "free" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      And you're supposed to pretend a 70 hour work week, no socialized health care and the largest prison population on the planet makes you land of the free and home of the brave.
      Go wave your Made in China flag elsewhere...

    2. Re:European definition of "free" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that parent was modded -1 flamebait, while grandparent got modded to +5... when they're arguably equally valid, even if inflamatory, opposite points of view...

    3. Re:European definition of "free" by Atzanteol · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's times like this I wish I had mod points... I'm getting just as tired of all the U.S. bashing going on...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    4. Re:European definition of "free" by Atzanteol · · Score: 0, Troll

      a) I'm not sure how non-socialized health care makes us 'not free'.
      b) 70 hour work week? Maybe in a .com startup...
      c) We should let the prisoners free?
      d) I don't think the poster meant we were perfect over here. He's just sick and tired (as am I) of the U.S. bashing that goes on quite liberally here...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    5. Re:European definition of "free" by 73939133 · · Score: 2, Troll

      Shhhh! You're supposed to pretend that it's the United States which has been trying for centuries to become a fascist, totalitarian empire, and Europe which is trying desperately to preserve Western civilization. It's the new fad, you see.

      Sadly, you completely misunderstand why Europeans don't like US policies. Europeans don't argue about whether it is the US or Europe that should "preserve Western civilization", they believe that any such undertaking is intrinsically flawed. That was a lesson painfully learned over several centuries by Europeans, but America seems intent on repeating the same mistakes.

      As for fascism and totalitarianism, no nation is immune, not even the US. But maybe that, too, is a lesson Americans may have to discover for themselves.

    6. Re:European definition of "free" by Eric+E.+Coe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Maybe. Or maybe not. But the European (read French) obsession with this contains more than a wiff of "projection" onto the US "other". As in "that is what we would do if we were still able to be that powerful."

      And "they believe that any such undertaking is intrinsically flawed" - these are the words of tired "old Europe" - the words of self-hate. The residue of the COMINTERN effort to destroy the West; preparing it for conquest by spreading defeatist memes. We're not buying it.

      --
      An esoteric scratched itch:
      Homeworld Map Maker Tool
    7. Re:European definition of "free" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      a) It just shows how our government taxes us to pay for crap like "wars" on terror and drugs, but doesn't bother to provide us with services that everyday citizens can really use, like health care.

      b) Sure, 70 hours is an exaggeration, but the point is that Europeans typically work only 35-40 hours per week (35 is mandated by law in France), get plenty of vacation (isn't it 6 weeks in Germany?), and on the whole aren't terribly consumed by work. Americans, OTOH, typically work a minimum of 40 hours, many times more if they're salaried professionals. I don't have a problem with it when it's 1.5x-pay overtime, but salaried workers don't get that luxury, and companies have taken advantage of it. Even worse, unless you work in government, you only get 2 weeks of vacation, 3 if you're lucky. Marriages breaking up because of the husband having to spend too much time at work is very common here, and if you think about it, is devastating to society in the long term.

      c) No, we should give up the stupid "war on drugs", and look at ways of creating fewer criminals instead of trying to punish everyone. The US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Are people here really that bad? I don't think so. Europe doesn't have a huge criminal problem, and they don't have so many people in jail either. Maybe they're onto something. Unfortunately, we can't do anything the way they do, because the US has a big NIH complex.

      d) US bashing goes on liberally in places with a lot of international exposure (I imagine many /. posters are living outside the USA) because the US deserves a lot of bashing. No one goes around bashing China because China doesn't make any claims about being the land of the free. They're an authoritative government with very limited freedoms, and they don't deny it. I wouldn't want to live there, but at least they're honest. The US, OTOH, is a land of lies and ignorance. The government claims it's a bastion of freedom, yet any observer can see that our freedoms are quickly vanishing, especially after 9/11 and the PATRIOT act (the DMCA sure doesn't help). And worse, all the morons living here believe this and will argue with anyone about it, when it's so obviously false.

    8. Re:European definition of "free" by Kosi · · Score: 0, Troll

      d) I don't think the poster meant we were perfect over here. He's just sick and tired (as am I) of the U.S. bashing that goes on quite liberally here...

      So then why don't you Americans remove this mad cowboy from Whitehouse and let the man be president who was elected by the Americans to be it?

      Why do so many of you support a regime that breaks public international law for reasons of oil and personal hate so openly?

      Kosi

    9. Re:European definition of "free" by 73939133 · · Score: 0, Troll

      As in "that is what we would do if we were still able to be that powerful."

      Europe is still able to do that (its total GDP is bigger than that of the US, and it has the technology), it just chooses not to. What would be the point? Spend half a trillion dollars a year to be able to invade countries like Grenada and Iraq?

      The residue of the COMINTERN effort to destroy the West; preparing it for conquest by spreading defeatist memes.

      Hello? Were you frozen in the 1960's and have just woken up? There is no "COMINTERN effort" anymore.

    10. Re:European definition of "free" by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, so many people don't know what a 'Republic' is...

      Bush was elected by the electoral college. That's how it works over here. He is also *not* the first president to have lost the 'popular' vote, and still be elected.

      As to your second point, sometimes international law fails, as it had in Iraq. Sanctions only made the situation worse. The pathetic attempts of the UN to inspect for weapons were useless.

      And as far as I can tell, we didn't break international law. The UN sanction we upheld (which the UN didn't) mentioned there would be 'consequences' for Iraq not complying. Just because the UN is a bunch of wimps who don't see fit to backup their own resolutions with action, doesn't mean we broke any laws.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    11. Re:European definition of "free" by supradave · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't give us the right to vote for the president. It gives us the right to vote for a representative to the House of Representatives. They, in turn, have the authority to appoint the president throught the Electoral College.

      Unfortunately, even though it was legal, Dumbass is the president now.

    12. Re:European definition of "free" by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Yeah, me too. First the US bashes the palestinians,
      then they bash the Afghanis, then they bash the
      Iraqis (again), and now they're lining up to bash
      the Iranians (or is it the North Koreans?) too.
      I'm sick and tired of it, alright.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    13. Re:European definition of "free" by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Actually, as I recall, he was selected by five
      undead jurists in black robes.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    14. Re:European definition of "free" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the joke was funny until you proved its truth.

    15. Re:European definition of "free" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you familiar with the definition of the word "residue"? I'll assume that you're not a native english speaker, for your sake.

    16. Re:European definition of "free" by Kosi · · Score: 1

      What about Revolution before he ruins everything?

    17. Re:European definition of "free" by Kosi · · Score: 1

      And as far as I can tell, we didn't break international law.

      This was an illegal war of aggression which was not covered by the UNO resolutions! And so the U.S. clearly broke international law, as they always do if the see fit for their purposes.

      Just because there was written of consequences, it does not mean that the Americans may define what those consequences are, you arrogant!

    18. Re:European definition of "free" by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Anybody please tell me why telling the truth and speaking his mind openly gets modded down as troll?

    19. Re:European definition of "free" by Atzanteol · · Score: 1
      Just because there was written of consequences, it does not mean that the Americans may define what those consequences are, you arrogant!
      Yes. Darn us for enforcing law! Next time we'll leave it all up to the French who's sharp penalty to Iraq will be a *very* strongly worded letter! That'll teach those Iraqis!

      What good is a resolution that is un-enforced? The UN truly proved it's uselessness in this scenario. Even further so by not punishing the US if indeed we did break any laws! How pathetic is that? The UN is a whining playground. They'll pass resolutions, talk about law, etc. But when it actually comes to *doing* something, they're a paper tiger. Well, the US is *not* a paper tiger. We may be arrogant at times, but we got the friggin job done when nobody else did.
      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    20. Re:European definition of "free" by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Darn us for enforcing law!

      Enforcing? How much more cynical can you be? The U.S. broke the law! There is consent about this except in the U.S. and GB. Read the int. public law concering wars of aggression yourself!

      Even further so by not punishing the US if indeed we did break any laws!

      Must I remind you that the U.S. would have blocked any resolution against itself with punishment because of starting this war of aggression?

      And must I remind you that reasons for this war were neither the (non-existant) mass destruction weapons nor the freedom of the Iraquis? It were oil, venegance (GWB:"he tried to kill my daddy") and to have more power in this part of the world!

    21. Re:European definition of "free" by Atzanteol · · Score: 1
      Must I remind you that the U.S. would have blocked any resolution against itself with punishment because of starting this war of aggression?
      Thus proving my point that the UN is useless, and why the US felt the need to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq. What would you have done? Allowed 'more time' (because 10 years was just not enough) for the weapons inspectors? Issued a strongly worded statement against Iraq? Iraq, and more specifically Saddam, learned a long time ago that the UN was unwilling to enforce anything. They have now learned that the US *will* stand by what it says.
      And must I remind you that reasons for this war were neither the (non-existant) mass destruction weapons nor the freedom of the Iraquis? It were oil, venegance (GWB:"he tried to kill my daddy") and to have more power in this part of the world!
      Paranoid conjecture. No proof to any of this.
      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    22. Re:European definition of "free" by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Paranoid conjecture. No proof to any of this.

      More than for the mass destruction weapons.

      Just two examples to analyze how the Bush junta lies to it's citizens and the rest of the world:
      After 11.9.01 they quickly spread word that S. Hussein had something to do with the attack, which is clearly not true. Saddam and the Iraq were never a threat to anyone else except his own population at least in the past 5 years.
      Or how Mr. Bush lied yesterday, that MDWs had been found, but still didn't want to give proof.

      On one hand they talk shit about freedom and democracy, on the other hand they steadily destruct these things in their own country!

      ATM, the U.S. steers a course that seems to lead to a totalitarian regime, where the only ones who are really free to do what they want are themselves, the megarich and the megacorps.

      But I'm sick to discuss with people who are so blinded by their partiotism that they don't see behind the things, so let's stop it right now.

    23. Re:European definition of "free" by Atzanteol · · Score: 1
      Blind with patriotism? My original remarks were that I was sick of the US being bashed by others. *Every* country has it's dirty underwear, we're no different. Some have more, some have less. I happen to think we have less, but it's seen much more. Every politition lies. President Bush is no exception. Show me an honest polititian and I'll show you a fool. No this doesn't make it 'right'. I'm just saying it's no different elsewhere than here. The difference is that in truly non-free countries they don't have a press who can write about when the polititians lie.

      The British have cameras everywhere, monitoring on streets all over (we in the US may go this way too). Why don't they get picked on? This is far more intrusive into normal life than many of the new US laws.

      As for the totalitarian regime, I'm scared of many of the new laws being passed (Patriot act et al). But I don't quite take it to the paranoia that you do. Throughout history governments have grabbed and given up power. I think many of the new laws will be challenged (the *real* test of a law), and some will fail (I hope).

      After 11.9.01 they quickly spread word that S. Hussein had something to do with the attack, which is clearly not true.
      You have no more proof of your claims than President Bush has of his.
      Or how Mr. Bush lied yesterday, that MDWs had been found, but still didn't want to give proof.
      Not giving proof is not a lie. Showing proof to the contrary would make his statements a lie...
      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
  123. It would be worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To buy this, paint "HMS IBM" on it, and launch it in Utah Lake (just west of Lindon, Utah).

  124. Who can legally buy this behemoth? by TerraByte13 · · Score: 0

    Is the sale up for only certain countries or can any millionaire buy it? Lets say a crazy millionaire or group purchases this thing and crashes it into an offshore drilling complex. Is seller now partly responsible for selling it to this crazy person or group? Lots more to worry about other than a pink slip...

  125. Buying this beats waiting... by drdale · · Score: 1

    for the ever-delayed release of Harpoon 4.

    --
    This post is dedicated to all of those /.ers who do not dedicate their posts to themselves.
  126. Groundpoint of the 'Beanstock' by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    Set it out in the Pacific on the equater and start the carbon tube fabricators!

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  127. heh by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 1

    How many Pepsi Points do you need this time?

    --
    Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
  128. Expensive? No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taxes and licenses are avoidable by flying the appropriate flag.

    Fuel and crew are big bucks, but nothing compared to the revenue that comes from turning the whole thing into a casino.

    As they say on TV (around here), "Meet me at Foxwoods!"

  129. Man, you find some crazy stuff on E-Bay. by surfcow · · Score: 2, Funny

    For Sale: 500,000 lbs of chemical weapons, only used once. Be the envy of your region! Buyer pays shipping.

    For Sale: special aluminium tubes for building a breeder reactor capable of creating weapon's grade materials, or perhaps just nice, shiny pipes for indoor plumbing.

    Unique - mobile biological weapons laboratories of an ingenious design. Guaranteed to contain no trace of any biological weapons material. Needs work.

    No Reserve! Blank Nigerian documents for Uranium exports, cheap. Great gag gift. No reserve!

    Rare Collector's item: Nuclear warhead of North Korean design. Discount for unstable dictators.

    First edition! "The Wit and Wisdom of George W. Bush". Mint condition. Buyer pays 37 cent postage.

    1. Re:Man, you find some crazy stuff on E-Bay. by La+Camiseta · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but what's kind of scary is this one:
      http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIte m&item =3524695224&category=112

      Shit, who needs militant Islamic extremeists when you can buy a CD set with all of the info to royally screw over all of those people who fucked with you in high school for $35.00.

  130. Re:I'd go for something a little more fuel efficie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It uses oil so its only about $0.50-$0.75 per gallon, I forget exactly how many gallons there are in a barrel of oil. Guessing about 40, and I haven't check the price of oil recently either.

  131. No, Aircraft Carrier is not a fixed structure. by Renesis · · Score: 1

    Sealand almost counts as a nation under International Law because it is a fixed structure and is more than 1 metre above sea-level at all times. The only issue is that it actually now exists inside the borders of the UK and is no longer in International waters as it was when it was first constructed (the rules changed on how far your borders extend).

    But no, an aircraft carrier doesn't count. Nor does an oil rig for instance.

    1. Re:No, Aircraft Carrier is not a fixed structure. by zCyl · · Score: 1

      it actually now exists inside the borders of the UK and is no longer in International waters as it was when it was first constructed

      If you extend that line of thinking too far, parts of France are inside of Spanish international waters. If Sealand considers itself independent, and people consider it independent, then it is no more within the UK's international waters than part of the UK is within its international waters.

      And considering that a British court declared that Sealand was independent in 1968, the only thing likely to change Sealand's independence would be war.

  132. Perfect for Co-Lo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget Sealand... turn this baby into a colo with satellite uplink, cruising international waters forever. :D

  133. If I had the money... by master_p · · Score: 1

    I would buy the IJN Yamato (well, if it was available)...the most impressive battleship ever built!!!

  134. Why Boats Float by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    How to sink an aircraft carrier:
    Make its average density greater than water.


    I'm not sure this is accurate. My understanding is that a boat will float if mass of the boat is less than the mass of the water displaced by the boat. Mass and density are not the only issues: what also matter is that the hull offers sufficient displacement of water.

    --
    -kgj
  135. They MIGHT have catapults eventually... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    " Thankfully new UK carriers don't have catapults..."

    True, but according to the defense industry press, your new boats are being designed for them. You're not getting them right off, but if the US/UK Joint Strike Fighter program tanks, you'll probably have to add them to get a modern strike fighter on the seas. The UK government learned the hard way during the Falklands war that while small STOVL carriers are a cheap method of sea control, they suck at power projection, and a handful of old A-4 Skyhawks and some Exocet missles gave them all the trouble they could handle. This is why the U.S. Navy abandoned it's Sea Control Ship (on which the Spanish light carrier Principe De Asturias is based) concept in the 70's and decided to stick with large catapult flattops. Nothing says intimidation like a flattop with 70+ tactical aircraft sitting off of your coast.

    The only reason the Royal Navy is going with the STOVL JSF is because Lockheed Martin promises it will deliver F-18 caliber performance (around Mach 2, with the ability to carry lots of ordinance) with vertical flight capability. Considering how badly the F-22 program has gone (which LM also runs), I'm not real optimistic about JSF. Besides, I'm still not sold on the idea that you can take one aiframe and make it do EVERYTHING. Most newer fighters have multiple abilities, but you wouldn't take an F-15 and turn it into a dedicated tank-buster, or a carrier-born anti-sub bird. Don't be terribly shocked if JSF is eventually canceled.

    If that happens, the Royal Navy will want to get a Mach 2 class bird out to sea fast, and that'll mean an F-18 derivative or a navalized Eurofighter. And having a carrier designed for catapults would allow them to make that transistion quickly. It's actually a smart move on the part of the UK. The RN just can't continue to use Sea Harriers forever. They're just not up to snuff for fleet defense AND power projection, and they're getting long in the tooth.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:They MIGHT have catapults eventually... by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Everything I have heard from people in the know at Lockheed Martin indicate that while yes, the F-22 program is troubled the F-35 is beating everyones expectation by a wide margin. Of course, one of the big problems is that defense contractors always assume that they will actually get the production rate that congress passes initially. When Congress goes back later and starts to reign certain programs in, it cuts the production rate and makes each unit more expensive. Case in point is the whole Seawolf vs. Virgina SSN problem. Seawolf was too expensive, so they stripped it down to make the Virginia class. Now they have reduced the rate on the Virigina's so much that they are almost as expensive as Seawolf was in the first place.

      I do have to admit, the F/A-22e/f/g program has been amazingly successful.

    2. Re:They MIGHT have catapults eventually... by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

      AFAIK the JSF, F22 and Eurofighter are not mach 2 capable - M1.4ish for the F22, 1.unspecified for the EFA, 1.2ish for the JSF.

      Modern combat planes are slower than the last generation, as 'one shot' interceptors like the old BAE Lightning ate fuel too fast to be useful.

      --
      Beep beep.
  136. Less Dense Water: the Bermuda Triangle by handy_vandal · · Score: 4, Interesting
    How to sink an aircraft carrier:
    Make its average density greater than water.


    Alternately, make the water less dense:
    A British scientist claims to have solved the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle - and says the explanation could fix the world's energy problems.

    Geologist Dr Ben Clennell told a conference that the phenomenon where planes, ships and people have vanished was caused by giant gas bubbles.

    The gas bubbles resulted from underwater landslides releasing frozen methane gas which had built up over millennia. The methane ice "gas hydrate" was produced by deep-sea bacteria feeding beneath the ocean bed.

    The effect of these apple-sized bubbles rising to the surface could be disastrous because the release of a large quantity of methane would reduce the density of seawater.

    Search Google
    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Less Dense Water: the Bermuda Triangle by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      I saw a show on the Discovery channel (I believe) that was very similiar to that. It was gas bubbles, but from the limestone bed of the ocean, (I think).

      When the gas was released, the bubbles lowered the effective density of the water over an area, and anything that was floating on it would probably sink.

      Doesn't exactly explain aircraft though. Air turbulance can be a factor, but.......

      They did a demonstration, where someone fitted a swimming pool with a grid of pipes with small holes in them, and then pumped compressed air into the pipes. It made all the water bubble (duh), and their little toy boat sank.. I can't say I was impressed with their technological know-how, but it was cute.. Kind of reminded me of a little kid farting in the bathtub. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:Less Dense Water: the Bermuda Triangle by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      In one of the technology museum of London (I don't remember its name). I remember a similar effect being demonstrated. Only, it was a sand bin with compressed air coming from the bottom. When one pushed the button, the sand became very fluid and I could easily sink my hands in it. It was sort of a quick-sand on demand. The effect was pretty neat.

      I wonder if someone could replicate the same effect on a larger scale in their garden?

    3. Re:Less Dense Water: the Bermuda Triangle by IICV · · Score: 1
      So, in essence, the sea is farting at us?

      This display of disrespect cannot go unpunished! We must bomb them!

    4. Re:Less Dense Water: the Bermuda Triangle by tgma · · Score: 1

      I just read the biography of an Australian salvage expert, Mike Hatcher, which tells the sad story of how they lost a diver who jumped into the water around a pump that was acting as a sort of vacuum cleaner, saying "It's my own private jacuzzi!" Unfortunately, because the water with all that air in it had a lot less buoyancy, and he happened to be wearing a weight belt, he sank immediately to the bottom (>100 ft) and was drowned. Sounds like the same effect.

    5. Re:Less Dense Water: the Bermuda Triangle by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "The gas bubbles resulted from underwater landslides releasing frozen methane gas which had built up over millennia."

      The funny thing about liquids is that they propogate waves pretty well. Shouldn't this result in a tsunami? Or, at the very least, noticable seismic activity?

    6. Re:Less Dense Water: the Bermuda Triangle by osPDAproject · · Score: 1
      "Doesn't exactly explain aircraft though. Air turbulance can be a factor, but......"

      Imagine a giant, farting into an aircraft engine. I think we can all agree the result would be quite interesting indeed. :)

  137. mod parent informative by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Informative!

    --
    -kgj
  138. born with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the guys were probably good enough not to let any fall off.

    Maybe soccer skill in the US *has* improved, but it would be a good idea to invent something to avoid a large overhead in replacement players.

    Ach ! This *is* beginning to look too much like a Simpson's episode.

  139. Caroline by marnanel · · Score: 1

    You just register it with a country that doesn't mind what you're up to. It worked for the Caroline (for a few years, anyway).

    As for dockings for maintenance: you can bring supplies using another ship. That's how Sealand manages, and it's never going to dock anywhere.

    --
    GROGGS: alive and well and living in
    1. Re:Caroline by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      Sealand is a stationary platform on concrete pilings. It doesn't need to be hauled into dry dock and scraped and painted every three or four years.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  140. An Open Source Boat? by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    Perhaps if the /. community bought it... We could get the boat running *nix.

    That way when the terrorists infect all the Military's systems with the BinLaden.w32 bug... that will be the last boat standing.

  141. Re:I'm In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds good to me.

  142. Then the /. headline... by SunPin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ask Slashdot: A few months ago, we discussed how to buy an aircraft carrier. After a hectic fundraising bid, me and all my "friends" were able to purchase the Brazilian sea whore through PayPal. I thought "Brazilian Sea Whore" was such a rad name that we rechristened it with the name. Unfortunately, now there's a problem. We ran out of food and the situation makes Lord of the Flies look like a comedy. A portion of the crew has broken off into a Klingon language faction and is proposing mutiny. We've descended into cannibalism but we're not sure how to decide who dies first in a fair way for everybody. So my question is this: what do you think about using /. ID numbers in descending order as a valid way of choosing who gets cooked next? While some of the lower ID numbers are pretty fat and would last for weeks, it's probably not a good idea as they would make ideal emergency rations. Not like we don't have an emergency already...

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
  143. Rephrase for the ignorantly knowledgable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What oil tanker is going to refuse to surrender their cargo to a friggin aircraft carrier?

    The one that has half-a-dozen warships assigned to it after the United States hears about your raid of the first one?

    (Actually, an aircraft carrier by itself only has a few self defense weapons, so you probably wouldn't have to surrender. Without aircraft and/or a battle group around it, it's just a ship. Then again, a few thousand rounds from a Phalanx cannon could ruin your day.)

  144. Not for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's euros and cents, here. Then :

    Getting shot off the catapult is probably going to in big demand as major fun. So, it should cost appropriately.

    And, in case the person being catapulted is not supposed to notice until the last moment, why then it should cost at least three times as much !

    Jingle !

  145. *Build* your own Carrier. No, really. by Futaba-chan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Someone I know has thought fairly seriously of doing just that:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/Carrie r/
    (membership required, et cetera).

  146. I might have served on her... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look for this:

    Deck 4, Ward 9, Bunk 22. Low on left bulkhead should be the words "This navy can kiss my arse."

  147. You have to paint it constantly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There you have it. Who in the world would
    want, unless they had a navy (with sailors),
    something that they would have to paint?
    Ok, if it's you, then come paint my house first,
    then we'll talk about the ship.

  148. do they ship ups? by NedTheNerd · · Score: 1
    Do they ship via ups

    how much would that be? oh you guys have a payment plan right?!

  149. Re:This is old news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why was this modded off-topic? It was supposed to be funny! (Haven't I heard enough comments about how the 17" Powerbook is like an aircraft carrier on your desk...)

  150. In comparision: by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    The USS Enterprise (WWII):
    • Displacement 25,484 tons FL 32,060 tons FL
    • Length @ WL 770' 770'
    • Length Overall 809'6" 827'5"
    • Width @ WL 83'2" 109'6"
    • Width @ FD 108'11" 114'2"
    • Draught FL 25' 11" 28' 4"
    I'd say that if you really wanted to have a party, refiting an oil tanker would be best if you want big (just not as cool). (If anyone wants stats on modern carriers or oil tankers, google'em yourself.)
    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:In comparision: by Handpaper · · Score: 1

      ISTR a rumour that the former USSR was selling off its FBMs (less ICBMs and missile compartment). Wouldn't a Typhoon make the ultimate floating (sinking?) gin palace? According to this there are two going begging ATM.

  151. Canadian boat better and cheaper by digitalgimpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.frenchcreekboatsales.com/details.asp?Fi le_Number=PW852

    The M.V. Cowichan
    (pronounced) M V COW-ITCH-en

    and affordable:

    Reduced to $190,000(CDN) OBO

    Boy, I guess it's safe to say they will never attack america.

  152. Re:I'd go for something a little more fuel efficie by blair1q · · Score: 2, Funny

    852000 gallons/tankful
    42 gallons/bbl
    20000 bbl/tankful
    $25/bbl

    ==> an even half-million bucks to fillerup.

    Do you think we'll have time to run in for a donut and a lottery ticket?

  153. Buy It Now by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
    No reserve? Awesome!

  154. not likely by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    More like 100,000 users with 5,900,000 alternate accounts.

  155. I'm getting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and putting it on Lake Travis, Texas

  156. Re:I'm in! -- errrrr mmmm by bizitch · · Score: 1

    We're gonna need a little more $$$ than that ...

    I mean we nead a pretty kick ass 15,000 node LAN for starters ...

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
  157. Did you check the rest of the site ? by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    There are some cool working boats there. Tugs supply barges ferrys and even an oildrilling platform 22.000,000.00 areal bargain.

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  158. Any Landing by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    1 Any landing that you can walk away from is agood landing
    2 Anytime you can reuse the aircraft it is an execellent landing

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  159. Fix them? Nah, we'd just bend over! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If a corp tries, via a foreign country, to upset the US national interests, the US would "fix" that country. Just ask Saddam Hussein.

    Better yet, ask Halliburton, which has done huge business in direct opposition to the US national interest with many foreign countries including two of the three members of the Axis of Evil and Libya. The U.S. Gov't has fined Halliburton several million dollars for doing business with terrorist states, but then gave it a $7 billion contract to put out oil well fires. When there weren't any oil well fires to speak of, the U.S. Gov't told Halliburton to keep the money, we'd find other things for them to do.

    The moral is that with the right connections, you can upset the US national interests all you want and the government will just bend over further and ask for a kiss.

    As for foreign countries, the US indicted 14 members of Hizb'allah for the Khobar Towers bombing in 2001, which killed 19 US airmen. The suspects were in Saudi Arabia at the time and Saudi Arabia has refused to extradite them to the US to stand trial. We're not kicking their ass either. Instead, we're doing exactly what Osama bin Laden has wanted us to do for the last 12 years: taking our troops out of SA.

    Pakistan sold gas centrifuges to North Korea to help its nuclear weapons program and is providing safe haven for the Taliban on the Afghan border. We're not kicking their ass either.

    Seems to me that we just invaded Iraq to distract everyone from the sight of GWB bending over adn greasing up for the real terrorists.

  160. Re:They Will have catapults eventually... by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    Article in Janes not too long back describing a Electromagnitic cat that the bri navy was working on . said to be gentler on the A/C and gie a higher Velocity.

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  161. You know, no one cares about this sort of thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    except Spelling Nazis such as yourself.

    Just so you no. Er, know.

    1. Re:You know, no one cares about this sort of thing by patman600 · · Score: 1

      shouldn't that be "just sew ewe no."

  162. Correction by David+Price · · Score: 1

    I said gross "margin". I meant gross "profit." Gross margin is a percentage. My bad.

  163. Flux Capacitor?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scince they said this ship served in
    the *Brazilian* navy, shouldn't they look fo
    and remove this device, so terrorists can't
    go back in time and wreak havoc with the
    space-time continum?

    (for those who don't know what the hell I
    am talking about, think back to the 1995
    Simpsons halloween special)

  164. Nice SIg by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

    I like that, and I might just have to steal it.

    --
    "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
  165. Re:I'm In by buck_wild · · Score: 1

    Hilarious!

    --
    If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  166. Re:I'd go for something a little more fuel efficie by Duhavid · · Score: 1

    6,200@23 Knots, according to warships1.com ( make sure your popup blocker is ON ).

    Also, note the same site reports that her top speed is currently only about 18 to 20 kts.

    That may be why she is for sale, hard to run ops at that speed. And maybe it fell some more due to mechanical difficulties.

    --
    emt 377 emt 4
  167. Lloyds of London by w42w42 · · Score: 1

    They have the answer. There is none. Hell, there isn't even a question. Over the history of their records for maritime claims, the Bermuda Triangle has not differed statisticly from anywhere else for maritime accidents.

    1. Re:Lloyds of London by dorsey · · Score: 1

      The "question" is not the number of maritime losses, but the circumstances surrounding them.

      --
      hinderfreude ('hin-dur-"froi-d&), n. The feeling of joy derived from being in the way.
  168. Talk about your gas hog's by nevada-bill · · Score: 1

    Capacity: 3,196 Tons plus 98,000 gallons of Aviation fuel
    Endurance: 12,000 Nautical miles @ 14 Knots, 6,200 Nautical Miles @ 25 Knots
    Lets see 3,196*2000=6392000lbs.
    6392000/7.5=852266.67 gallons
    852266.67/12000=71.02 gallons per mile
    My whole pay check wouldnt pay for one days commute!

  169. A workaround... by intermodal · · Score: 1

    fine...register in sealand ^_^

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  170. Old news by Viper168 · · Score: 1

    I already have a few of em.

  171. ONLY 4.5 MILLION?? by iamhassi · · Score: 1
    I don't have 4.5 million, but that sounds like a STEAL! No seriously, it's over 2 football fields long and can sail around the world, not to mention land planes on it.

    Imagine the CHICKS you could get! Screw a mansion, you have a FREAKIN' Aircraft Carrier! Countries tremble when you draw near! Can P.Diddy AKA Puff Daddy say that about his home? Huh? Can he? I don't think so.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  172. Are adds allowed? by Derf+the · · Score: 1

    I didn't realise direct advertising was allowed on /. Hey, anyone want to buy my truck, its only 49 years old, years newer than that old ship.

    --
    No. You can't look at my Sig; it's mine, and I'm not showing you.
  173. Buy the Boat. Use it to host crack sites, porno... by gfranch247 · · Score: 1

    That's a great idea buy the boat then it in international waters to host crack sites, pornography and spam. All of the things I hate the most, But as I figure, it wouldn't be a perfect plan to have a floating "fortress" in international waters, and being an annoyance on the internet. On international waters I'd figure if a country would get mad at you for hosting the garbage, they'd just bomb the ship and say it was an accident. Apparantly this thread is so stupid I had to break from coding to reply, I must be getting tired.

  174. That's a lie ! by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    ...everybody knows the boats disappear in the bermuda triangle because of David Copperfield.

  175. Portable Sealand by bruthasj · · Score: 1

    Put all your freedom servers on this baby and move around to different sat links when different governments shut you down for "breaking" the "law".

  176. OSN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open Source Navy!!! A Linux based ship should be able to easily take out all those cheesy Windows based ships in the US navy.

    Munitions want to be free!!!

  177. Snow Crash? by teknokracy · · Score: 1

    Slightly reminiscent of the broadband mogul who bought the USS Enterprise in "Snow Crash". Let's build The Raft!

  178. better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Buy carrier
    2. Head over to Colombia and load up a shitload of cocaine.
    3. Drop it off on the West coast (no one will believe you are stupid enough to attempt running drugs in an _aircraft carrier_).
    4. Profit!

  179. Better as museam piece. by StarTux · · Score: 1

    All this talk misses one vital point.

    This is serious naval heritage that has survived a rather long time :).

    Would love to see it purchased and moored as a memorial to *all* those who fought on carriers at sea during WW2 in any theater.

  180. They turned me down :( by inf0rmer · · Score: 1

    I offered them $2mill, cash - but they didn't take my offer. They wanted to know where the money came from because I offered them cash; I wouldn't tell them, so they refused! Pity; I'm an avid Gilligan Island watcher - my own mobile island! Peace...

  181. ob. /. Book Review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  182. Like the Kuznetsov.......... by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1
    The best looking carrier in the world, IMAO, potentially the best balanced carrier platform in the world - If only the Soviets had the money to sort it & maintain it, it would be a great platform.

    What with a possible future combination of Su-33 (Su-27K) Sea Flankers, Su-25UTG 'Frogfoots', Su-32FN Sea Strike Flankers & twin (contra-rotating) main-rotor Kamov Choppers, the Kuznetsov has the potential to reign supreme as the most balanced carrier platform in the world (in many ways the Yanks are just too big for anything but all out war).

    The Su-33 (Su-27K) is undoubtably the best carrier fighter in service ever. It's also the 1st production aircraft in the world with both canards & a traditional tailplane.

    Russian Aviation Gallery:

    In comparision to the F14 Tomcat the Su33 has more power on take off. While it is not assisted by a catapault the Su33 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and also, due to better aerodynamics, generates more lift. Flaperons were replaced with slotted high lift flaps to increase lift and control at low speeds. Comments from US Naval aviators who visited the Kuznetsov about the Su33 consistantly praised their ability to climb immediately after launch instead of 'hanging' in the air like their catapault launched aircraft.

    The Su-32FN is the Naval version of the Su-34 Strike Fighter. It has Sukhoi's revolutionary tri-plane layout (Canards in combination with tradional central mainwing & rear tailplane layout), twin nose-wheels, folding wings & tailhook. Also, just like the Su-34 Strike Flanker, it has a amoured Ti cockpit & crew quarters (with cot, loo & food warmer) & low altitude contour navigation. Plus, ontop of its traditional forward AI radar, it also has rear facing air-intercept radar. This works with the only production AI missles that can be fired backwards, IE against the thrust of the aircraft & meaning the missle's actually flying backwards, in relation to its own thrust for the 1st few 1/100s of a second after its fired. Normally only 1 or 2 AI missles are installed facing backwards. These R73 AI missles are thrust-vectored & thus can also be fired forward & the flip over 180 degrees & go backwards or vice-a-versa. Hence only one or at max 2 are mounted backwards, because if needed a forward firing one can be fired backwards too. Can be fitted with all the Su-30's super long range equipment & refueling probe (as do all the 30 series Flankers)

    Fighter Tactics Academy Strike Flanker page:

    "...The Su-32"FN" has 12 armament/store stations and can carry the entire inventory of standoff weapons as well as up to four air-to-air missiles. The total weight for armament comes out to around 8,000 kg (17,600 lbs) with a flight range of around 4,000 km (2,160 nm), increased up to 7,000 km (3,777 nm) with in-flight refueling. It is noteworthy to mention that the Su-32"FN" can carry and employ the UPAZ air refueling store, so one Su-32 could refuel from another. External wing-tip mounted Sorbtsya ECM pods can also be carried.

    One of the most fascinating features about the Su-32"FN" is its large side-by-side crew station that contains the left command-pilot and right navigator-armament operator's stations. It is a fully pressurized

  183. You've forgotten about the Kuznetsov by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1
    The best looking carrier in the world, IMAO, potentially the best balanced carrier platform in the world - If only the Soviets had the money to sort it & maintain it, it would be a great platform.

    What with a possible future combination of Su-33 (Su-27K) Sea Flankers, Su-25UTG 'Frogfoots', Su-32FN Sea Strike Flankers & twin (contra-rotating) main-rotor Kamov Choppers, the Kuznetsov has the potential to reign supreme as the most balanced carrier platform in the world (in many ways the Yanks are just too big for anything but all out tier-1 war - think what just one fat US carriers costs to run & maintain for just 1 day).

    The Su-33 (Su-27K) is undoubtably the best carrier fighter in service ever. It's also the 1st production aircraft in the world with both canards & a traditional tailplane.

    Russian Aviation Gallery:

    In comparision to the F14 Tomcat the Su33 has more power on take off. While it is not assisted by a catapault the Su33 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and also, due to better aerodynamics, generates more lift. Flaperons were replaced with slotted high lift flaps to increase lift and control at low speeds. Comments from US Naval aviators who visited the Kuznetsov about the Su33 consistantly praised their ability to climb immediately after launch instead of 'hanging' in the air like their catapault launched aircraft.

    The Su-32FN is the Naval version of the Su-34 Strike Fighter. It has Sukhoi's revolutionary tri-plane layout (Canards in combination with tradional central mainwing & rear tailplane layout), twin nose-wheels, folding wings & tailhook. Also, just like the Su-34 Strike Flanker, it has a amoured Ti cockpit & crew quarters (with cot, loo & food warmer) & low altitude contour navigation. Plus, ontop of its traditional forward AI radar, it also has rear facing air-intercept radar. This works with the only production AI missles that can be fired backwards, IE against the thrust of the aircraft & meaning the missle's actually flying backwards, in relation to its own thrust for the 1st few 1/100s of a second after its fired. Normally only 1 or 2 AI missles are installed facing backwards. These R73 AI missles are thrust-vectored & thus can also be fired forward & the flip over 180 degrees & go backwards or vice-a-versa. Hence only one or at max 2 are mounted backwards, because if needed a forward firing one can be fired backwards too. Can be fitted with all the Su-30's super long range equipment & refueling probe (as do all the 30 series Flankers)

    Fighter Tactics Academy Strike Flanker page:

    "...The Su-32"FN" has 12 armament/store stations and can carry the entire inventory of standoff weapons as well as up to four air-to-air missiles. The total weight for armament comes out to around 8,000 kg (17,600 lbs) with a flight range of around 4,000 km (2,160 nm), increased up to 7,000 km (3,777 nm) with in-flight refueling. It is noteworthy to mention that the Su-32"FN" can carry and employ the UPAZ air refueling store, so one Su-32 could refuel from another. External wing-tip mounted Sorbtsya ECM pods can also be carried.

    One of the most fascinating features about the Su-32"FN" is its large side-by-side crew station that contains the left co

    1. Re:You've forgotten about the Kuznetsov by The+Mayor · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, if only beauty made the aircraft carrier effective. I don't know how else to put this, but you need about 35 aircraft to provide 24-hour air support for a single aircraft carrier fleet group. This Russian carrier is roughly the same size as the French & British carrriers. While the more recent Soviet/Russian aircraft are excellent machines, with superior flight envelopes to anything the US has, the Russians are still unable to project air power from their aircraft carriers.

      The only country that has deployed these mini-aircraft carriers for their sole air support in a significant combat mission is the UK (in the Falklands). Even against a relatively weak counter force, the UK was still unable to project air power during that conflict. At this stage, the only reason the UK & France keep these things around is to assist with other operations (either land-based or in conjuction with allied forces, as in Iraq or Afghanistan).

      --
      --Be human.
  184. Nuclear propulsion by ironduke-particle · · Score: 1

    ... is a bad idea as a retrofit. Assuming you can obtain a suitable reactor design and a supply of close-to-bomb-grade fuel pins, and you can build this thing, and you have technicians to drive it in three-shift operation, you still keep getting stuck with extra costs -- disposing of spent fuel, the emergency defuelling shed, etc etc. USN skimped on some of these sort of things even for the Nimitz class.

    Of course, nuclear propulsion is of interest to the Navy of the United States of Brazil (er... USB. Not sure if they're running the 1.1 or the 2.0 constitution, but what the heck). They have had an ongoing SSN (nuclear-powered attack submarine) programme running for many years, so it's not like they're planning to exploit the sea flank in some local aggression in Latin America, they plan to be a blue-water navy.

    Good luck to 'em. It's expensive. That's why Her Majesty's MOD entertained nuclear propulsion for a few seconds at most for the two aircraft carriers ordered from a Thales-led consortium. That's why the Royal Navy likes two (or preferably three, or four, or more, of everything) -- if somebody knows the maintenance schedule of your better assets, then they can pencil in several sets of prospective invasion dates straight away. Aircraft carriers are not much use without aircraft, either.

    Digression: roll your own aircraft carrier? You're probably going to need steam catapult and arrester wires to launch and recover aircraft. Nobody's ever built a dependable steam catapult; the US, UK and France tried and close enough, others have tried and failed. But the spend-the-money-in-your-own-economy aspects of building your own aircraft carrier are compelling.

    What aircraft do you need? Fighters or fighter-bombers; bombers; transports; search-and-rescue helicopters; Airborne Warning And Control System; airborne tankers; antisubmarine warfare aircraft. I maintain that the catapult-shoe-plus-tailhook variant of the JSF that the USN has demanded is a waste of time and they should be running the Marine Corps' STOVL one instead. But all of these aircraft, and crew, and training, cost money. The way forward is to share costs.

    So if the Brazilians, or whoever, really cared, they'd buy into several consortia, for aircraft purchases and crew training, and for the ship construction programme.

    Buy someone else's 60-year old castoff? I don't care how many refits it's had, it's fit only for razor blades.

  185. Forget it- the Chinese are starting a collection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already purchased a couple of aircraft carriers, to take them apart and learn to build their own. Most recently the Varyag, a partially complete Ukrainian ship left mothballed by the end of the Soviet Union.

  186. Is a country where media / industry / politician.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... are linked still a democracy ?

    Sorry to remember you this point but Sir W.Bush was eletected with fewer US citizen than gore ;)

    Liberty is not a de-facto status. You have to fight for it.

    We've Seen how the US media manipulate (cf. murdoch's chanels) the US opinion according to the arm&oil lobby "good will", there is no doubt that liberty is no more on the US side :(

    Sorry, but you've been manipulate. Did you forget about Irak been the "2nd big army in the world" and owning "mass destruction weapons" ! Did you remember that was the reason US striked Irak ?

    Of course, it turned soon to a "flower-power"-ished 'we are the good, they are evil', or 'we are the freedom, we are going to free them' or ' god is on our side' ... and so blahblahblah :(

    If Irak was not the #2 oil reserv in the whole world then the would never care a ball about getting rid of a dictator that they empowered 40 years ago !

    US citizen, wake up and fight the money imperialism ! Fight the arm lobby & the oil lobby !

    Sad days for the planet ...

    -sLK

  187. moron decommissioning the georgewellian.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hate machine.

    we ALREADY paid for ALL of that stuff (aircraft carrIErs incl.).

    now we have to build our own, if we waNT to ride on won.

    just fauxking insane, if it wereN'T so dangerous for most of US. consult with yOUR creator. lookout bullow.

    sure enough, build a boat, that can float on any substance, but we'l never stock it with murder machines, made in the usa, or anywhere else.

    how in the fud can you tail sumwons whois sum greed/fear based stock markup fraud corepirate nazi, megalomaniacal tyraNT, to do anything differeNTly?

    vote with yOUR wallet. we don't need any more dead babies on our consciense, thanks.

  188. (*) fine print by photomic · · Score: 1

    *Aircraft not included. DAMN!

  189. Bermuda Triangle, Methane, Plane Failure by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Doesn't exactly explain aircraft though. Air turbulance can be a factor, but.......

    Methane is flammable -- a big cloud of it getting into a plane engine could ignite, or cause engine failure from insufficient oxygen. (Maybe also cause the pilot to fail from insufficient oxygen.)

    --
    -kgj
  190. the Bermuda Triangle: Nature's Mega-Fart by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    So, in essence, the sea is farting at us?

    Yes, that's the theory.

    This display of disrespect cannot go unpunished! We must bomb them!

    I propose we ignite the mega-farts with a gigantic Bic lighter -- using butane to fight methane, so to speak.

    --
    -kgj
  191. Funny Thing About Liquids by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    The funny thing about liquids is that they propogate waves pretty well. Shouldn't this result in a tsunami? Or, at the very least, noticable seismic activity?

    Good point, worth investigating.

    Another funny thing about liquids is when you crack a joke, and someone who is drinking beer laughs really hard and the beer shoots out their nose.

    --
    -kgj
  192. only $616,651 to fill 'er up by mtstump · · Score: 1

    at yesterday's naval crude price of 26.32 it only takes a mer $616,651 usd to top the sucker off.

  193. IT'S A TRAP! by Beliskner · · Score: 1
    Buy your own Aircraft Carrier
    NOOOOOOOOO! Admiral Osama, it's a trap!
    --
    A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  194. Especially vexing for the land locked. by twitter · · Score: 1
    Seriously, if you're a minor country 'build or buy' is a serious issue.

    Not only is this very difficult for a country under the age of 18 years to consider, it's also very difficult for landlocked coutries to fathom.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  195. You forgot several more by gacp · · Score: 1

    There are several models of Yakovlyovi carrier-based jet fighters (Yak-36, Yak-38, Yak-141 ) that are VTOL. Also, CHEAP!!!

    --
    ``L'imagination au povoir.''
  196. At $2500 Each, 1800 Of Us Could Buy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys want to group? I could probably swing some more over time to handle fuel and maintenance as well. I can weld too.

    1. Re:At $2500 Each, 1800 Of Us Could Buy It by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      I'm in. I get the captains cabin. Don't these things have a crew of 5000 or something. we could get some big DnD games going.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  197. Re:I'm In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I vote for anarchy too. You're the first one I'll shoot.

  198. OSS Community buy it! by teemu.s · · Score: 1

    -> all the community events and work could happen there. place it in the middle of nowhere in the ocean - no sco lies would bother us, obsds hackathon could happen there, no export restrictions on strong crypto; no disturbance at all .. wouldnt that be great?

  199. S.S. Tux - Count me in for $1000.00 USD by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

    Let's start a company to buy this thing. Name it S.S. Tux. I'll buy $1000.00 worth of stock. There has to be real market potential for a commercial aircraft carrier!

    Re-fit the ship so she can carry passengers and make ports of call in the Bahamas or wherever. Ferry people on and off the ship using helocopters (I doubt you could get insurance for other landing methods). Market it as a unique "adventure vacation package."

    I also think that it would be important to paint it some non-military color to avoid any possibility of confusion. Perhaps, we could sell sponsorship to Target? The bullseye would be a great place to land the helocoptors!

    Off-season we could sail it to Antartica and see some penguins. Or go the the Panama Canal and up the West Coast and sit off of Redmund and moon Bill Gates!

  200. Eh, do you know what you are talking about? by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    The French carriers, Clemenceau, Foch & Charles De Gaulle, are in 'Extreme Dimensions' (basically decksize including all overhangs) closer to Midway size than they are to the British Light Fleet Carriers (whether the classic cold-war ones or the later VSTOL type). Ontop of which, the Kuzetsov fits in between the Midway & Forestal Classes in everything but the air-wing component (displacement, hull-size & deck size):

    British - Colossus Class - late WWII/ cold war angled flight deck catapult Jet carrier - HMS Colossus, Vengeance, Venerable, Mars, Glory, Ocean, Edgar, Theseus, Triumph, Warrior, (French) Arromanches, (Brazil) Minas Gerais (Argentina) Veinticinco De Mayo

    Displacement: 18,300 tons full load
    imensions: 630 x 80 x 23 feet/192 x 24.4 x 7 meters
    Extreme Dimensions: 695 x 80 x 23 feet/211.8 x 24.4 x 7 meters
    Aircraft: 37

    British - Majestic Class - modified Colossus - HMS Magnificent, Terrible, Majestic, Powerful, Hercules, Leviathan, (Australia) Sydney, Melbourne (Canada) Bonaventure, (India) Vikrant

    Displacement: 17,780 tons full load
    Dimensions: 630 x 80 x 23 feet/192 x 24.4 x 7 meters
    Extreme Dimensions: 695 x 80 x 23 feet/211.8 x 24.4 x 7 meters
    Aircraft: 37

    British - Centaur Class - Improved Colossus - HMS Centaur, Albion, Bulwark

    Displacement: 24,000 tons full load
    Dimensions: 650 x 90 x 24.5 feet/198 x 27.4 x 7.5 meters
    Extreme Dimensions: 737 x 90 x 24.5 feet/224.6 x 27.4 x 7.5 meters
    Aircraft: 42

    British - Centaur Class (updated) - VSTOL - HMS Hermes, (India) Viraat

    Displacement: 27,000 tons full load
    Dimensions: 650 x 90 x 27 feet/198 x 27.4 x 8.2 meters
    Extreme Dimensions: 737 x 123 x 27 feet/224.6 x 37.4 x 8.2 meters
    Aircraft: 26

    British - Invincible class - VSTOL carriers - HMS Invincible, Illustrious, Ark Royal

    Displacement: 20,600 tons full load
    Dimensions: 632.7 x 90 x 21.3 ft
    Extreme Dimensions: 688 x 118 x 28.8 ft
    Aircraft: 14 VSTOL + helicopters

    French Clemenceau & Foch cold war angled flight deck catapult Jet carrier

    Displacement: 32,700 tons full load
    Dimensions: 780.8 x 104 x 28.2 feet/238 x 31.7 x 8.6 meters
    Extreme Dimensions: 869.5 x 168 x 28.2 feet/265 x 51.2 x 8.6 meters
    Aircraft: 40

    French Charles De Gaulle - nuclear powered carrier

    Displacement: 36,000 tons full load
    Dimensions: 780.8 x 103 x 27.8 feet/238 x 31.4 x 8.5 meters
    Extreme Dimensions: 858 x 211 x 27.8 feet/261.5 x 64.4 x 8.5 meters
    Aircraft: 35-40

    Russian Kuznetsov - fullsize ski-jump carrier

    Displacement: 67,000 tons full load
    Dimensions: 984 x 124.5 x 36 feet/300 x 38 x 11 meters
    Extreme Dimensions: 990 x 239 x 36 feet/301.8 x 72.8 x 11 meters
    Aircraft: 30+

    US Midway class - 1st generation US Super-Carrier

    Displacement: 59,901 tons full load
    Dimensions: 900 x 113 x 32.75 feet/274.3 x 34.4 x 10 meters
    Extreme Dimensions: 968 x 136 x 32.75 feet/295 x 41.5 x 10 meters
    Aircraft: 137 (late WWII vintage) or 75 (mid to late Cold War jets)

    US Forrestal class - 2nd generation US Super-Carrier

    Displacement: 76,614 tons full load
    Dimensions: 990 x 129 x 35.5 feet/301.75 x 39.3 x 10.8 meters
    Extreme Dimensions: 1040 x 250 x 35.5 feet/317 x 76 x 10.8 meters
    Aircraft: 80+

    1. Re:Eh, do you know what you are talking about? by The+Mayor · · Score: 1
      Yes I do know what I'm talking about. Please compare to modern carriers. Here's a link. Summarizing from the webpage:
      • The Nimitz class (10 ships): approx 97,000 tons displacement, 85 aircraft.
      • Enterprise class (1 ship): 89,600 tons, 85 aircraft.
      • John F. Kennedy (1 ship): 82,000 tons, 85 aircraft.
      • Kitty Hawk class (1 ship): 82,000 tons, 85 aircraft.
      From here, you'll find that the Kuznetsov carries between 40 and 60 aircraft.

      Look, my only point is you need about 80 aircraft to both protect your fleet and project ait power. Only the US aircraft carriers can do this. It's that simple.

      --
      --Be human.