User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 1:13:42 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Every other yard period IIRC, so every 3-4 years they drydock. Depends on what they need. I believe they sit on large blocks of wood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 1:29:02 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The issue with not enough aircraft is sortie rate. They can sort of surge it for a short bit, but pretty quick you can't even keep the small air group (6 IIRC?) that they do have running, so its down to like 3 or 4. And yes, I'm sure a LHA/LHD could project power into whatever sub saharan country for a short bit, but again, sustaining it is another matter. Numerous studies over the decades have concluded that if you want a useful air wing, you need a big ass carrier since its the only thing capable of sustaining the sortie rates required. With the quality of our aircraft and engineering, would the quality over quantity thing come into play at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:52:21 AM EDT
[#3]
Pretty close to fake news. The Truman is the only one that's in a 'degraded state' outside of normal maintenance planning. Basically this is business as usual. I won't pretend that means things are all rosy, but this is how the navy has worked for at least the last 8 years since I've been an employee and I suspect far further back than that.
Written from onboard CVN-77. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 4:00:12 AM EDT
[#4]
I'll betcha there's a bunch of rich whores walking spraddle-legged around Norfolk tonight, leaving snail-tracks as they
hobble down the street. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 4:18:14 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
........Initially, the dock is flooded about 4 feet high to its keel blocks, wood-capped concrete pads on which the ship has been supported during construction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 8:28:52 AM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 8:30:36 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EIIE4MyX0AECS_n?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EIIE4lCWwAETNIe?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EIIE460WkAIqf6P?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EIIE5P0WoAA7tzr?format=jpg&name=medium I'm in the Navy. What do you do? I drive Aircraft Carriers like I stole them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 8:33:21 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And this information is made public  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 8:41:33 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh man. How awesome would that be? I'm in the Navy. What do you do? I drive Aircraft Carriers like I stole them. 
It’s always impressive seeing those big bastards leaning like that in a turn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 8:43:54 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless you’re the guy who has to clean up the puke afterwards
It’s always impressive seeing those big bastards leaning like that in a turn. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Oh man. How awesome would that be? I'm in the Navy. What do you do? I drive Aircraft Carriers like I stole them.
It’s always impressive seeing those big bastards leaning like that in a turn. Max speed. Full rudder left, immediate full rudder right, full rudder left. Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 9:08:37 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless you’re the guy who has to clean up the puke afterwards
It’s always impressive seeing those big bastards leaning like that in a turn.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 9:09:43 AM EDT
[#12]
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. No. 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. Also wrong. Operators, once qualified, could stand watch in any of the 4 propulsion plants. I was RO on all 8 reactors at one time or another in the 4 years I was there.Reactor department was bigger, just because there were 8 reactors instead of 2. And the ELTs... sooo many. 32 steam generators is a lot of work maintaining chemistry, and those weren't all the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 9:15:41 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. No. 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. Also wrong. Operators, once qualified, could stand watch in any of the 4 propulsion plants. I was RO on all 8 reactors at one time or another in the 4 years I was there.Reactor department was bigger, just because there were 8 reactors instead of 2. And the ELTs... sooo many. 32 steam generators is a lot of work maintaining chemistry, and those weren't all the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 9:43:03 AM EDT
[#14]
This happens often enough that every other time I've heard about it, its been on AR15.com.
I'll be over here panicking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 9:52:58 AM EDT
[#15]
We could park every single carrier in full drydock for a year and literally nothing would change in the world.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:03:25 AM EDT
[#16]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:05:03 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wasn't she far and away the fastest too? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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: 10/30/2019 10:08:28 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys think this is bad? I suggest not to look at the state of the aircraft that fly on those..... It ought to be comical, but real life once again proves it's worse than fiction. The Navy is months behind schedule on our job, and that is nothing more than a report review. I predict the situation will get worse, I don't believe their merry group of Then, there is the guy that goes on vacation for the month of December ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:08:36 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every other yard period IIRC, so every 3-4 years they drydock. Depends on what they need. I believe they sit on large blocks of wood. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How often do they dry dock aircraft carriers? And what the hell is this one sitting on??! Are those crates? https://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2013/october/ford_drydockflood_1.jpg I believe they sit on large blocks of wood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:10:56 AM EDT
[#20]
Read it.
Stephen Coonts, The Art of War. Chinese government plans to decimate the US Fleet while 6 carriers are in port at the same time at Norfolk. Good book, too. Yeah, book has a few years on it, but it sure is funny how stuff from books happens sometimes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:18:33 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With only 6, I can see that as being the issue in a protracted conflict. Fortunately, most of our adversaries these days - can be taken out in 3 or 4 sorties, if carefully planned. I've always wondered why the US never adopted the smaller carriers like the Brits. Can our carrier based aircraft operate off such a small carrier? I mean the Harrier and F35 obviously can - but I don't know if a F18 will be able to launch off such a short deck - even with the ramp. With the quality of our aircraft and engineering, would the quality over quantity thing come into play at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 1:30:29 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With only 6, I can see that as being the issue in a protracted conflict. Fortunately, most of our adversaries these days - can be taken out in 3 or 4 sorties, if carefully planned. I've always wondered why the US never adopted the smaller carriers like the Brits. Can our carrier based aircraft operate off such a small carrier? I mean the Harrier and F35 obviously can - but I don't know if a F18 will be able to launch off such a short deck - even with the ramp. With the quality of our aircraft and engineering, would the quality over quantity thing come into play at all? No one else has, because they can't actually afford it and really don't have the know-how to do it. The STOBAR carriers everyone else uses have the singular advantage of being "cheap" relatively speaking. But at the expense of having a much smaller and vastly less capable air groups. You can't really launch heavy aircraft off STOBAR carriers, the Russians and Chinese that are doing it with the Su-33/J15 can't take useful armament and fuel. Sure you can air refuel, but those carriers can't launch tankers so now you are tied to land based tankers. Plus they are limited in terms of the AEW platforms they use and so forth (helo borne radars aren't good relative to an E-2 in any department). The Brits sort-of learned their lesson with small carriers and the new Elizabeth class is decently sized, and can be upgraded with actual catapults at some later date if funding allows. In the meantime they will operate F35B's which are a significant upgrade to Harriers, but still inferior to the F35A/C in terms of payload, range etc. Its quite telling that the Chinese are opting to build CATOBAR carriers for their "next generation". The Liaoning and the current Type 002 will be the only STOBAR ships they will build and will be more "training ships" once their new carriers are out. It should be noted that the Chinese carriers are also larger than any other existing STOBAR carriers save for the new QE class. Putting them at an advantage over their regional rivals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:06:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When it comes to air ops quantity has a quality all its own. And thats the reason the US has opted for super-carriers, esp nuclear powered ones (more space). Because they are the only thing that can generate the required sortie rates required in a near peer conflict. And because CATOBAR carriers are the only ones that launch fully loaded bombed up aircraft without making compromises. No one else has, because they can't actually afford it and really don't have the know-how to do it. The STOBAR carriers everyone else uses have the singular advantage of being "cheap" relatively speaking. But at the expense of having a much smaller and vastly less capable air groups. You can't really launch heavy aircraft off STOBAR carriers, the Russians and Chinese that are doing it with the Su-33/J15 can't take useful armament and fuel. Sure you can air refuel, but those carriers can't launch tankers so now you are tied to land based tankers. Plus they are limited in terms of the AEW platforms they use and so forth (helo borne radars aren't good relative to an E-2 in any department). The Brits sort-of learned their lesson with small carriers and the new Elizabeth class is decently sized, and can be upgraded with actual catapults at some later date if funding allows. In the meantime they will operate F35B's which are a significant upgrade to Harriers, but still inferior to the F35A/C in terms of payload, range etc. Its quite telling that the Chinese are opting to build CATOBAR carriers for their "next generation". The Liaoning and the current Type 002 will be the only STOBAR ships they will build and will be more "training ships" once their new carriers are out. It should be noted that the Chinese carriers are also larger than any other existing STOBAR carriers save for the new QE class. Putting them at an advantage over their regional rivals. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
With only 6, I can see that as being the issue in a protracted conflict. Fortunately, most of our adversaries these days - can be taken out in 3 or 4 sorties, if carefully planned. I've always wondered why the US never adopted the smaller carriers like the Brits. Can our carrier based aircraft operate off such a small carrier? I mean the Harrier and F35 obviously can - but I don't know if a F18 will be able to launch off such a short deck - even with the ramp. With the quality of our aircraft and engineering, would the quality over quantity thing come into play at all? No one else has, because they can't actually afford it and really don't have the know-how to do it. The STOBAR carriers everyone else uses have the singular advantage of being "cheap" relatively speaking. But at the expense of having a much smaller and vastly less capable air groups. You can't really launch heavy aircraft off STOBAR carriers, the Russians and Chinese that are doing it with the Su-33/J15 can't take useful armament and fuel. Sure you can air refuel, but those carriers can't launch tankers so now you are tied to land based tankers. Plus they are limited in terms of the AEW platforms they use and so forth (helo borne radars aren't good relative to an E-2 in any department). The Brits sort-of learned their lesson with small carriers and the new Elizabeth class is decently sized, and can be upgraded with actual catapults at some later date if funding allows. In the meantime they will operate F35B's which are a significant upgrade to Harriers, but still inferior to the F35A/C in terms of payload, range etc. Its quite telling that the Chinese are opting to build CATOBAR carriers for their "next generation". The Liaoning and the current Type 002 will be the only STOBAR ships they will build and will be more "training ships" once their new carriers are out. It should be noted that the Chinese carriers are also larger than any other existing STOBAR carriers save for the new QE class. Putting them at an advantage over their regional rivals. Carriers are a waste. There is no war where they are going to determine the outcome...but plenty where they get sunk. We could dock 100% of them and nothing would change in the world. Not one thing would be different...but it wouldn't matter anyway as the US population does not have the will to defeat third world tribes with AKs, much less a nation state army with actual anti-ship weapons. America needs to get out of the war business. We lack the stomach for it and won't win. Better not to play than to play to lose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:10:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wasn't the Navy shooting to reduce manning so that they could justify more expensive ships? I thought that was the point of the LCS program. Of course, I will freely admit to not understanding the need for 11 carriers right now. It would seem that the level of force projection that represents is something that is more based on overweening pride than necessity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
tl; dr Here's a summary: Navy: "give us more money. Terrible things will happen if you don't." The Navy gave up plenty of personnel and O&M bucks for the GWOT, and this is the result. They are starting to push back on both. This is what you're seeing. Of course, I will freely admit to not understanding the need for 11 carriers right now. It would seem that the level of force projection that represents is something that is more based on overweening pride than necessity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 4:26:48 PM EDT
[#25]
Will you fuckers stop it with the CATOBAR, STOVL and the STOBAR shit?
No one in the US Navy calls carriers by those stupid names. You have Carriers and Amphibs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 5:02:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Will you fuckers stop it with the CATOBAR, STOVL and the STOBAR shit? No one in the US Navy calls carriers by those stupid names. You have Carriers and Amphibs. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 6:02:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Will you fuckers stop it with the CATOBAR, STOVL and the STOBAR shit? No one in the US Navy calls carriers by those stupid names. You have Carriers and Amphibs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 6:27:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Officially 34 knots - but she could get to top speed faster than most other ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 9:41:50 PM EDT
[#29]
Damn...learned a lot in this thread...thanks guys!
One of the reasons I love Arfcom... Realitically, what are the chances of the US engaging in a near peer conflict within the next 50 years. Hell, are there even any peers near us in technology or capability? China's carrier situation is a bit of a joke from what I heard. Russia? Puhlease! France and Britain are the only other nations that run carriers, right? Agreed on the F35 being a massive upgrade on the Harrier. Harrier is one of my all time favorites, but it is long in the tooth and subsonic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:56:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have always wondered about what the actual top speed of those flat tops really are. I would not be surprised if its over 50 knots. Imagine the bow wave of a 100k ton ship going 50 + knots. The turbines and screws, and thus the amount of horsepower that can be applied to the water, are very similar between the oil-burning super-carriers and the nuclear carriers. The two differences are: How is the steam generated? Burning fossil fuel or fissioning atoms? Hull length. The nuclear propelled carriers are longer, largely due to the reactor spaces, and thus their drag rises slower as speeds increase. So, my amature opinion is that the CVNs will be very slightly faster at top speed than the last CVs. However, the CVNs can "work up" to top speed in less time than oil burners could. I don't believe 50 knots is in the realm of the achievable here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 3:31:55 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct. BIG blocks of wood. The position of keel blocks is unique to every class of ship, and CVNs, despite the name, are for all practical purposes, pretty much classes of one so the pre-docking planning needed is significant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Every other yard period IIRC, so every 3-4 years they drydock. Depends on what they need. I believe they sit on large blocks of wood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 4:33:42 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn...learned a lot in this thread...thanks guys! One of the reasons I love Arfcom... Realitically, what are the chances of the US engaging in a near peer conflict within the next 50 years. Hell, are there even any peers near us in technology or capability? China's carrier situation is a bit of a joke from what I heard. Russia? Puhlease! France and Britain are the only other nations that run carriers, right? Agreed on the F35 being a massive upgrade on the Harrier. Harrier is one of my all time favorites, but it is long in the tooth and subsonic. Its a funny thing, but "by definition" near peer means the other nation is going to have nukes, which more or less rules out "conflict" unless its going to be very limited. Which probably means no one is going to sink each others carriers. In many ways I see future "near peer" conflicts looking alot like the weird clusterfuck proxy war in Syria right now. With everyone bombing the other guys "rebels". Carriers main role is force projection and to show the flag. Which is a big part of why China wants them, uppity johnny come lately African dictator talking about nationalizing Chinese mining firms? Park some carriers off the coast. And if that doesn't do it, you have your floating airfield for bombing gadjookistan into the pre-stone age. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 4:37:48 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The length of the hull at the waterline and the ratio of that to the width of the hull influence how much drag a hull has at any particular speed, with, in general, drag increasing as speed goes up. The turbines and screws, and thus the amount of horsepower that can be applied to the water, are very similar between the oil-burning super-carriers and the nuclear carriers. The two differences are: How is the steam generated? Burning fossil fuel or fissioning atoms? Hull length. The nuclear propelled carriers are longer, largely due to the reactor spaces, and thus their drag rises slower as speeds increase. So, my amature opinion is that the CVNs will be very slightly faster at top speed than the last CVs. However, the CVNs can "work up" to top speed in less time than oil burners could. I don't believe 50 knots is in the realm of the achievable here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 4:57:04 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Plenty of other nations run carriers. Off the top of my head the Argies and Brazil have/had older French/Brit ones. Indians have a few. Thailand has one, Italy and spain have one each at this point IIRC. But most of those are harrier/F35 carriers. With india running mig29k's on theirs (or supposed to at some point, and they used to operate harriers) Its a funny thing, but "by definition" near peer means the other nation is going to have nukes, which more or less rules out "conflict" unless its going to be very limited. Which probably means no one is going to sink each others carriers. In many ways I see future "near peer" conflicts looking alot like the weird clusterfuck proxy war in Syria right now. With everyone bombing the other guys "rebels". Carriers main role is force projection and to show the flag. Which is a big part of why China wants them, uppity johnny come lately African dictator talking about nationalizing Chinese mining firms? Park some carriers off the coast. And if that doesn't do it, you have your floating airfield for bombing gadjookistan into the pre-stone age. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 4:59:47 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That and disaster relief/ response and evacuation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 5:02:54 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just to throw in a fun fact. Early in their early cold war naval doctrine Soviet SSN's were primarily designed to run down nuclear powered CVN's, and pork them with nuclear tipped torpedoes. Which is part of the reason soviets didn't give much of a shit about them being "quiet", not much you can do about quiet if you are hauling ass at 45+ kts underwater. Also, part of the reason they invented the Shkval rocket torpedoes they have, point click nuke. But here on Arfcom we only judge opfor through the lens of US doctrine... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: The length of the hull at the waterline and the ratio of that to the width of the hull influence how much drag a hull has at any particular speed, with, in general, drag increasing as speed goes up. The turbines and screws, and thus the amount of horsepower that can be applied to the water, are very similar between the oil-burning super-carriers and the nuclear carriers. The two differences are: How is the steam generated? Burning fossil fuel or fissioning atoms? Hull length. The nuclear propelled carriers are longer, largely due to the reactor spaces, and thus their drag rises slower as speeds increase. So, my amature opinion is that the CVNs will be very slightly faster at top speed than the last CVs. However, the CVNs can "work up" to top speed in less time than oil burners could. I don't believe 50 knots is in the realm of the achievable here. We can't possibly believe someone has a simpler, easier solution that we do. It's not possible because we are American. Until we get our asses kicked. It's not ww2 anymore and our thinking is way too rear-looking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 5:05:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But here on Arfcom we only judge opfor through the lens of US doctrine... I know for a while carrier groups were accompanied by an attack sub to counter soviet subs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 5:06:50 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, the good guy and "look good for the camera" roles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 5:24:22 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can only speak to the U.S. Army, but prior to the OPFPR Contemporary Operational Environment (circa 2004) OPFOR strategy, tactics, formations, and equipment were based on Soviet, North Korean, and various hostile Middle Eastern government documents and interviews with defectors. I think we have more that a few OPFOR veterans from NTC and such on the board. Alas, they can bring the average knowledge of ARFCOM on OPFOR maters up only so far, though. Good point. I know for a while carrier groups were accompanied by an attack sub to counter soviet subs. We don't have the ships to field full battle groups anymore. Carrier groups no longer have a dedicated sub or supply ship and fewer escorts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 5:24:47 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have always wondered about what the actual top speed of those flat tops really are. I would not be surprised if its over 50 knots. Imagine the bow wave of a 100k ton ship going 50 + knots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 5:25:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know for a while carrier groups were accompanied by an attack sub to counter soviet subs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 5:25:49 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The can actually go 87 kts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 5:41:01 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump is about to deploy the California Earthquake Machine and drop L.A. and SanFran into the sea?
https://d6u22qyv3ngwz.cloudfront.net/ad/o6VN/at-and-t-wireless-ok-translator-small-7.jpg IT'S HAPPENING!!! Japan tested it on Chiba Prefecture during Super Typhoon Hagibis. A Super Typhoon, 5.7 Earthquake, and a Tornado at the same time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 5:56:20 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do they paint the sections of the hull resting on the keel blocks? Jack it up slightly and move one out, paint it, let it dry and replace/repeat? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Every other yard period IIRC, so every 3-4 years they drydock. Depends on what they need. I believe they sit on large blocks of wood. The pattern will be different for the next dry dock evolution, and the spots that didn't get painted this time will get new paint then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 6:03:27 PM EDT
[#45]
You slammed the door on the General pretty hard, Jack.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 6:13:40 PM EDT
[#46]
Big Iron ships are obsolete. The last few anti-ship missiles fired in anger have been pretty effective.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 6:16:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You slammed the door on the General pretty hard, Jack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 6:54:52 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Big Iron ships are obsolete. Shit, I can't lower myself to finish it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 6:58:01 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pearl Harbor 2: the Boogaloo !!! https://publicradio1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/newscut/files/legacy/content_images/aircraft_carriers_large.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 7:00:17 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A tour of a carrier would be cool. Way back in the 80s I got to tour one of the few remaining active battleships, the Iowa. It was amazing. |
|
|
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.
