Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: americanophile
I should think a ship that fast would have a perfectly good military application. A great high-speed troop transport.

It was originally designed for use as such.

20 posted on 03/11/2009 1:56:43 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: Gondring

Can you build something that big and fast for the cost of refurbishing?


22 posted on 03/11/2009 1:58:22 PM PDT by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Gondring
She burns too much fuel to be competitive in todays world. Those big steam turbines are great for setting speed records, but would kill you for cruising. While sentiment serves some purpose we would be better off using any cash available for ship preservation for ships like Olympia, Texas, and other ships that actually did something spectacular and important to our national history during their lifetimes.

If we need troopships that can work as superliners between wars we would be better off building new ones with up to date electrical systems, high efficiency diesel engines, and better maneuverability inshore. Also pools on the upper decks can be drained and covered over with a thin structure to form landing pads as was done with Canberra and QE1 in the Falklands. SS United States had her pool deep inside and her deck is too cluttered to quickly add a helicopter port. Not a big issue in the early 50’s, a deal breaker now.

46 posted on 03/11/2009 2:20:37 PM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson