I can't state positively this is a CVN, but note the ship leading this carrier battle group.
Posted on 04/15/2005 2:27:55 AM PDT by Zero Sum
Not many. Very little research is published on this (now) hot topic due to its commercial value.
Put very crudely and simply: Algorithmic induction is a universal mechanism for generating the shortest program that will generate a particular output string. In conventional computer science, the program is given and the output is generated. With algorithmic induction the output is given and the ("a" really) program is generated. In essence, algorithmic induction reverse engineers the internal state of a black-box process from its output from which it can predict future states to the maximum predictive accuracy allowed by mathematics. A lot of very interesting properties fall out of this, like mathematically optimal decision-making. There are a number of classes of algorithm that are known to require algorithmic induction as a component of their implementation. Right now, we rely on humans to do algorithmic induction type processes.
The catch: there is only one description of universal algorithmic induction in computer science and it is known to be severely intractable, having limited use for narrow applications such as data compression. No approximations with better than geometric complexity have ever been publicly described. As a result, computer science is confined to only using algorithms that do not require algorithmic induction. Unfortunately, a lot of extremely important algorithms are in that group that requires algorithmic induction, and recent improvements in that area of mathematics have allowed us to understand the nature of the beast much better. There is an entire body of computer science that most programmers don't even know exists locked behind that one problem.
As a point of fact, the human brain demonstrably expresses a crude approximation of algorithmic induction that evidently scales "well enough". Crude though it may be, nothing currently described in computer science demonstrates similar efficiency at its level of scalability.
Way ahead of you...
I think the mine hit was Samuel B. Roberts FFG-48. The Stump was a Spruance. There were two or three mine hits. One of them was a Ticonderoga class. Don't remember which one.
I've read as much WWII navy stuff as I could get my hands & the amount of new knowledge I can pick up on FR still amazes me.
Maybe we can get one for our Patriots Point Maritime Museum, here in Charleston, SC.
We can park her right next to the USS Yorktown - CV10.
BTTT
The Belgrano was sunk by a salvo of three Mk 8 torpedoes from HMS Conqueror. Either one or two of these hit. The Mk 8 was an unguided, steam powered torpedo developed in the 1920s.
Why was a modern nuclear submarine using unguided torpedoes designed 60 years ago? Because the "modern" Mk 24 electrically powered homing torpedoes didn't work.
Yes...its a delight to chat these history threads,
FR offers invigarating conversation.: )
So what.
The carrier can far surpass that, as can the latest escorts.
Secondly, at that speed, the FUEL CONSUMPTION is much greater than the gas turbines.
Other than placing oilers throughout the theater, it ain't enough to keep up with the CVNs....
However, I am the first to agree that the 16" are the answer to maximum ordinance on target. The ability to place the shells where they needs to be 20 miles + is there, and just as reliable as the latest computer software
But the crew manning requirements are excessive. And unless we can "outsource" the crew for underpaid Canadians or Costa Ricans, it is too expensive a platform for the purpose to which it exists...
Mark Ude.
LT, USNR
Why would you want to run a BB with a CVN?
Fuel consumption is very high for everyone at 30+ knots. DDGs and CGs are always on the CVN or tanker for replenishment at those speeds.
However, my point wasn't that the BBs should be brought back, it was that 33 knots isn't slow.
I think the rail gun concept, with GPS rounds would be a smarter solution.
"However, I am the first to agree that the 16" are the answer to maximum ordinance on target. The ability to place the shells where they needs to be 20 miles + is there, and just as reliable as the latest computer software"
One thing that's important: Last I looked this is a team effort: no one will be doing the job "all by themselves"
When it comes to softening up a beachhead (which is still quite conceiveable) nothing beats a BB.
Perhaps the CVN's can out perform a BB, but their escorts (all conventional) will burn far more fuel per ton than a BB at anything over 20kt. That, plus their limited bunkerage will require them to UNREP more often. In any case, flank speed is rarely used. Cruising speed and range is still pretty respectable---what matters is having the asset where you need it, when you have it. You are going to have the AO's there (and now the T-AO's) regardless
(Also, BUSHIPS has looked at (in some detail) replacing the steam plant with Gas Turbines.)
Sabot rounds can reach further, plus the they pack a pretty good punch. I've still seen both 16/54 HE and AP rounds go much further than 20 miles. Insofar as we are dealing with beach heads (where Marines like to play) the BB is still a very viable weapon. If you add that in, plus the modifactions that Darth pointed out, you have what comes out to be a multi-purpose BB (add in the OHIO-class SSGN's that are due beginning in 2006 and you hav nice package)
You worry about manning. The navy can easily reduce ship's company to about 1,100-1,400 (depending on BB configuration)through automation and upgrades. While that is still a goodly amount of manpower, the platform is worth it.
It's easy for those who are sitting at sea to say what's good and what's not----in the end it's the Marines and Army that want an area softened up, a good idea considering they will be going into it.
That makes it worth it as well.
Yeah... gut it and make the BB armored troop transport.. WHy waste all that beautiful armor.. BB is not your average tin can..
Your objections, while true, apply to any ship in any navy in the world. Additionally, first use of a nuke is generally considered a really, really bad move.
I didn't know that about the Brit torpedoes. Thanks.
The new BB is not...not going to be some zenith do it all weapon platform
yet...if foresight is applied...the BB's huge hull and revamped interior ...modded for 21st with automation,
that effort enable the ship to have VLS cells banks for SM3 LEAP...AMB intercrept system....other new gen systems.
The navy has toyed with the concept of an arseanl ship.
what better option is there...stuff phenominal ord in a thin skinned ship which just one stand off weapon could knock out of action with a hit.
or apply the concept to the BB's hull and have a tasker that can stay in a fight...hold the line alone if need be.
Lastly....and something the Navy and Congress have failed to address...is the sheer granduer import that a BB brings to influence public attention...at home and abroad.
A BB steaming toward some distant shore on CNN is spectacular....the thing bristles with visual resolve.
Phone lines and seats fill up in the U.N. as paniced ....treacheorus types now rush to recover from what is unfolding.
U.S. Aegis warship are beautifull to some degree....but nothing visually like a BB with the nations Flag snapping in the breeze.
Now would be a good time...while Patriotism is growing..and a sense of return..as Americas influence see's world situations change.
If America found itself in a conflict which saw sustained attack at sea.
The naval yards at home would be overwhelemed to compensate.
Post Leyte Gulf to Okinawa saw an attrition rate which was staggering.
Nearly 300 DD's and DE's were damaged in some form alone during Okinawa opps in 45.
The charred and twisted cans were parked like an auto lot at Keramma Rhetto.
Wisemans cove ..was sarcastically called.... Wisemans junk yard by bluejackets.
I can't state positively this is a CVN, but note the ship leading this carrier battle group.
The problem isn't need for proper maintenance, it's powper requirements for flank speed, which is only requireed a small proprtion of the time.
The Spruance/Ticos/Burkes are big ships and require 5 LM2500's for full speed, so have 2/shaft.
With the smaller Brit/Euro/Jap ships 2 LM2500 or Olympus GTs are adeguate, so they have a COGOG arrangement with each shaft having one (usually off-line) and a samller cruising turbine, which is operates most of the time, (the only time it doesn't is when full speed is called for).
With slightly bigger ships, the arrangement is COGAG (Gas and Gas) where the cruise and main turbine operate together to give the full power requirement)
Where the full spped power requirement needs 4 LM2500/Olypmus size. That's what they have, with one on each shaft shut down for cruise.
And Iowa would require only 2 turbines on each shsft to deliver a max of 240000 HP, more than adequate.
Thanks!
As I had pointed out---the BB is part, but not all, of the equation. Howver, it's a very important link.
You make a point I had avoided making---but a VERY valid one nonetheless.
A BB is not only a powerful ship--it LOOKS powerful!
As you state, the BB's have the most stable hull ever---excellent for a new weapons system(s)
My dad has 13 bothers---7 of whom served in the Navy--and one of whom was aboard USS OBERRENDER when the MOUNT HOOD blew up at Manus. The concussion alone nearly scuppered OBIE (she was nailed later by a Kamikaze--and damaged beyond economical repair--she too ended up at Wisemans)) OBIE was a very able ship---but as you pointed out--a thin skinned one.
The DDG's we have today ARE very robust--the Damage suffered byCOLE proves that. BUT, she was still knocked out of the fight for quite a while. Another Uncle rode BB's in WWII---the newer ones took damage---but kept on going.
Aside from all the Technical and tactical stuff, SEEING the BB's and KNOWING they are as capable as they look sends a big message: Mess with this nation at your own peril!!!!
Combine her with the Carrier Battle Group, and you have a collection of ships that can do anything---at anytime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.