User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 2:52:18 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But did the chain of command read the 98 page Commanders Guide to Transgendered Sailors? Some light reading |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 2:57:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But did the chain of command read the 98 page Commanders Guide to Transgendered Sailors? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 3:01:39 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being a Super Power was lost a long time ago when people forgot how to use contractions...  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So basically were out of commission as a super power. Ain't nobody got time for that when you're speed texting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 3:09:48 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And Lincoln just pulled into Norfolk for refueling following two back to back 8 month deployments with a 7 month turn around in between...your point? The 2.0 presence requirement in the Arabian Gulf was extended WAYYYY too long and that had domino effects to maintenance and rotation schedules of the entire carrier fleet. We can surge carriers forward for ops, but that isn't sustainable. Lincoln also got caught by the start of OIF. They did their standard 8 month deployment in the Gulf in 2002 and were headed home. They got diverted to Australia where they spent a month to resurface the flight deck, then turned right around to the Gulf for the kickoff of OIF. So they did two deployments with almost no turn around and were away from home for more than a year. Ships pull in and out of port all the time. Since we have so few carriers it's easy to count them. Nobody is nit picking how many destroyers are at sea vs in port. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In December 2012 only the Eisenhower was at sea of all the carriers. And it was returning to port.. The 2.0 presence requirement in the Arabian Gulf was extended WAYYYY too long and that had domino effects to maintenance and rotation schedules of the entire carrier fleet. We can surge carriers forward for ops, but that isn't sustainable. Lincoln also got caught by the start of OIF. They did their standard 8 month deployment in the Gulf in 2002 and were headed home. They got diverted to Australia where they spent a month to resurface the flight deck, then turned right around to the Gulf for the kickoff of OIF. So they did two deployments with almost no turn around and were away from home for more than a year. Ships pull in and out of port all the time. Since we have so few carriers it's easy to count them. Nobody is nit picking how many destroyers are at sea vs in port. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 3:30:20 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I was on GW years ago, one of the main engines needed a giant ring gear replaced. (IIRC) The thing was around 8 feet in diameter, I have no idea how heavy it was, multi tons I'm sure. They had to build a plywood mockup of the gear the exact size of it, then cut holes in the decks from the hangar bay down to the engineering spaces. I saw it in the hangar bay. Then they had to do a dry run moving the plywood replica down to the space and back up to plan how to get it down there, rig and de-rig the cranes as they went. All that before they pulled out the broken one. They had to do all that planning and trial so when they actually did it they could get the part in and out safely and didn't get a very expensive, precision machined mutli-ton piece of steel stuck inside the ship or damaged before it got installed. THEN, after they got the gear installed, they had to repair all the holes they cut in the ship. And all of that was non-nuclear work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 3:40:45 PM EDT
[#6]
@AR15.Com Overlords, I need you to implement a Geo-IP block immediately, all OCONUS locations, block block block. OPSEC is at stake here!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 3:43:24 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 3:54:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Till the money runs out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:04:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meh, I'm on my phone. If it doesn't fix it for me I'm not going to click the button that allows me to use such things. Ain't nobody got time for that when you're speed texting. There is plenty of time to use the proper punctuation and grammar. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:07:29 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I was on GW years ago, one of the main engines needed a giant ring gear replaced. (IIRC) The thing was around 8 feet in diameter, I have no idea how heavy it was, multi tons I'm sure. They had to build a plywood mockup of the gear the exact size of it, then cut holes in the decks from the hangar bay down to the engineering spaces. I saw it in the hangar bay. Then they had to do a dry run moving the plywood replica down to the space and back up to plan how to get it down there, rig and de-rig the cranes as they went. All that before they pulled out the broken one. They had to do all that planning and trial so when they actually did it they could get the part in and out safely and didn't get a very expensive, precision machined mutli-ton piece of steel stuck inside the ship or damaged before it got installed. THEN, after they got the gear installed, they had to repair all the holes they cut in the ship. And all of that was non-nuclear work. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:16:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Pearl Harbor situation.
You don't have to be worried about missile strikes, you have to be worried about a couple of guys in a fiberglass boat who've cobbled together enough material for a critical detonation who manage to just get close enough. If I was any one of a dozen little shitty countries, this is how you cripple US force projection for the next decade. It's a 9-11 scenario with the lowest amount of tech and manpower possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:19:48 PM EDT
[#12]
"Lightning" carriers to the rescue !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:20:27 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pearl Harbor situation. You don't have to be worried about missile strikes, you have to be worried about a couple of guys in a fiberglass boat who've cobbled together enough material for a critical detonation who manage to just get close enough. If I was any one of a dozen little shitty countries, this is how you cripple US force projection for the next decade. It's a 9-11 scenario with the lowest amount of tech and manpower possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:25:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pearl Harbor situation. You don't have to be worried about missile strikes, you have to be worried about a couple of guys in a fiberglass boat who've cobbled together enough material for a critical detonation who manage to just get close enough. If I was any one of a dozen little shitty countries, this is how you cripple US force projection for the next decade. It's a 9-11 scenario with the lowest amount of tech and manpower possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:29:22 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because you are dealing with nuclear reactors and nuclear waste and you have to cut holes in the ship to exchange the fuel rods then button everything back up and do a lot of testing. And there's only one place to do it. Not like gassing up the family grocery getter. Hit that and eventually they are all out of commission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:37:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One place to do it seems like a bad idea . Hit that and eventually they are all out of commission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:37:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys think this is bad? I suggest not to look at the state of the aircraft that fly on those.....
I have read your posts on this topic before. What has happened to my Navy? When I left in 1991 things were looking ok, us just having won the Cold War and all... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:41:19 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You want to fund two nuclear refueling facilities? 
Cut back on some things |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:42:41 PM EDT
[#19]
This is what happens when you unnecessarily deploy carriers. The aircraft could have just as easily operated from land bases (like the land based tankers they rely on) and saved the wear/tear on the ships
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:45:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Just drive across the hrbt on hwy 64 and look South and you will see them lined up. Saw a bunch of dudes jumping out of a helicopter into the water training a couple weeks ago. I saw a sub heading out to sea last week driving across the Chesapeake bay bridge tunnel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 4:49:08 PM EDT
[#21]
So disappointed in you guys. Carriers are obviously here to participate in Big Igloo operations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:02:27 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuckin Obama |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:21:58 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys think this is bad? I suggest not to look at the state of the aircraft that fly on those..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:23:50 PM EDT
[#24]
SON, the Russians don't take a dump without a plan.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:24:34 PM EDT
[#25]
... WTF? Sure seems odd
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:30:54 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You want to fund two nuclear refueling facilities? We build the Virginia class subs in 2 different yards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:34:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Competition for bids and no single point of failure. We build the Virginia class subs in 2 different yards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:46:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Ford Class plus F35s plus MQ25s plus EMALs is gonna be awesome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:49:17 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An 8000 ton sub ain't a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier. Get the image in my minds eye of a thousand hamsters running on wheels when this is clearly a ten thousand hamster job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:50:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ford Class plus F35s plus MQ25s plus EMALs is gonna be awesome. And I'm not... That old. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:53:36 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I recall hearing that was one of the fuckups that the French made with the DeGaulle. They used a sub reactor to power a carrier. Get the image in my minds eye of a thousand hamsters running on wheels when this is clearly a ten thousand hamster job. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
An 8000 ton sub ain't a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier. Get the image in my minds eye of a thousand hamsters running on wheels when this is clearly a ten thousand hamster job. You know the Nimitz doesn't have the same one the Ford does |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:54:04 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And this information is made public  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:57:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I bet it's classified, but I wonder how many different reactors we have in our CVNs. You know the Nimitz doesn't have the same one the Ford does Nimitz uses these Ford class uses this. The details of function, internal layout and day to day operation are closely guarded secrets. But the broad strokes are known. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:57:36 PM EDT
[#34]
Do your fucking PMS sailors
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 5:58:19 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And this information is made public Let's see if Iran falls for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:02:28 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And this information is made public |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:04:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I recall hearing that was one of the fuckups that the French made with the DeGaulle. They used a sub reactor to power a carrier. Get the image in my minds eye of a thousand hamsters running on wheels when this is clearly a ten thousand hamster job. Because of the design she had the largest nuke contingent of personnel in the Navy because they weren't cross trained to operate the other plant designs. Like having several separate reactor departments onboard. The Nimitz boats only need the second plant for redundancy and to get that few extra knots of top end speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:04:27 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The most public sector of public sector information. Nimitz uses these Ford class uses this. The details of function, internal layout and day to day operation are closely guarded secrets. But the broad strokes are known. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I bet it's classified, but I wonder how many different reactors we have in our CVNs. You know the Nimitz doesn't have the same one the Ford does Nimitz uses these Ford class uses this. The details of function, internal layout and day to day operation are closely guarded secrets. But the broad strokes are known. 
Cool. I didn't even think we'd get that. The A1B stats are nuts |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:06:33 PM EDT
[#39]
Wasp with F35B's does 80% of the work at 25% the cost.
We don't need any CVN's out there right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:07:05 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys think this is bad? I suggest not to look at the state of the aircraft that fly on those..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:07:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Enterprise was a science experiment, she had 8 reactors of various designs. I think at least one of the plants had been deactivated and filled with concrete during her life. Because of the design she had the largest nuke contingent of personnel in the Navy because they weren't cross trained to operate the other plant designs. Like having several separate reactor departments onboard. The Nimitz boats only need the second plant for redundancy and to get that few extra knots of top end speed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I recall hearing that was one of the fuckups that the French made with the DeGaulle. They used a sub reactor to power a carrier. Get the image in my minds eye of a thousand hamsters running on wheels when this is clearly a ten thousand hamster job. Because of the design she had the largest nuke contingent of personnel in the Navy because they weren't cross trained to operate the other plant designs. Like having several separate reactor departments onboard. The Nimitz boats only need the second plant for redundancy and to get that few extra knots of top end speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:07:45 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wasp with F35B's does 80% of the work at 25% the cost. We don't need any CVN's out there right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:08:06 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do your fucking PMS sailors |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:09:30 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Enterprise was a science experiment, she had 8 reactors of various designs. I think at least one of the plants had been deactivated and filled with concrete during her life. Because of the design she had the largest nuke contingent of personnel in the Navy because they weren't cross trained to operate the other plant designs. Like having several separate reactor departments onboard. The Nimitz boats only need the second plant for redundancy and to get that few extra knots of top end speed. Eight "reactors." Obviously inspired by the Enterprise. But in this case it was four MSRs. Two fusion reactors and two zero point energy generators. Even with "all the money in the solar system" only two were built. How much of a maintenance nightmare would something like that be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:12:47 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wasn't she far and away the fastest too? I seem to recall reading more than one story where she outran her escorts. Raw frikking POWAHHHHHHH! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:16:27 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I bet it's classified, but I wonder how many different reactors we have in our CVNs. You know the Nimitz doesn't have the same one the Ford does Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
An 8000 ton sub ain't a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier. Get the image in my minds eye of a thousand hamsters running on wheels when this is clearly a ten thousand hamster job. You know the Nimitz doesn't have the same one the Ford does |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:17:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh yes. I seem to recall reading more than one story where she outran her escorts. Raw frikking POWAHHHHHHH! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't she far and away the fastest too? I seem to recall reading more than one story where she outran her escorts. Raw frikking POWAHHHHHHH! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:18:06 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
8 hours a day, 5 days a week minus holidays. That 4 years also includes the other non nuclear standard overhaul work. You have to prep the ship, when the reactors are open no other work is being done. So there's a lot of work getting it into and out of the refuelling facility. THEN all tge normal stuff. Because it takes so long there is usually a long list of unfinished maintenance that gets rolled over until the next yard period, delaying it 3 years or so unless something breaks. There ain't no lollygagging. Procedures for working on nukes read like, "worker number one torque 4 bolts to some specified spec. Worker number 2 torques those same 4 bolts independently to the same spec." It's very slow and methodical work because there can be no accidents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:18:50 PM EDT
[#49]
What you dont see and is not broadcasted in the clear are the big ass steel plates being welded underneath with the nuke bombs being attached.
Space force! Yeah baby! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2019 6:22:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Well that sucks.
Am I the only one that loves the WASP ships? I know jack shit about naval warfare, but they just seem to cover all the damn bases. Park one or 2 of those off the coast of any shithole country and it's game over. And they are a helluva lot cheaper than a carrier, right? Anyone with knowledge on those, please share. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
