Posted on 03/10/2016 2:45:54 PM PST by zeestephen
A $13 billion U.S. aircraft carrier is about to hit the open seas. It’s the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the most expensive and most advanced warship ever built. The ship was christened in November 2013 and is scheduled to be commissioned this month.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
The fastest large ship ever was the liner United States IMHO.
It takes tremendous power increase for every knot past the mid 20s. I know there are plenty of variables in marine engineering and some of the essays on the subject are pretty fascinating. Like I understand the stuff Ha Ha!
Loaded weight, how it is distributed in the ship, how clean is the hull, is the power plant at peak efficiency, what is the sea state and wind, how good are your dudes that are sweating away down in the bowels, and heck knows what else.
The Iowa class BBs could do 32-33 which was really moving for a battleship. The fastest big pax ship and only true ocean liner today the Queen Mary 2 did 30 knots on acceptance trials IIRC. She is the first four propeller civilian ship in fifty years.
Read a curious thing about steam power plants; they make better power in cold water. So the Missouri, say, would be a bit faster near the Aleutians than near Hawaii.
A Persian crap carrier.
So those forces are tied up defending a sitting duck. Where does correct and profound military strategy begin and kickbacks to congressional districts end?
Your opinion is has some interesting affects if implemented.
1. A CV can not do the Exact same mission, A CV and several more support ships to keep fueling her maybe.
2. The cost of the MUCH LESS effective Queen Elizabeth Class will be appx 4.5Bn 40 Aircraft vs 90 aircraft for a G.R.Ford class. So yes if you want half the carrier it is half the price more or less.
3. If you mean damage control due to nuke reactor being damaged in combat, the issue is null as anything that can borrow that deep means the ship is no longer effective be it a CV or a CVN
3 Cost of the Air wing if the CV and CVN were same size will be the same.
The ability to move at flank with out refiling is I think a fairly important. If nothing else it means that the CVN in the center of the group can run a far more evasive track than a CV can.
And.. now will be used for itself same result. need for more fleet oilers.
That makes no sense and isn't even an argument.
If you mean damage control due to nuke reactor being damaged in combat, the issue is null as anything that can borrow that deep means the ship is no longer effective be it a CV or a CVN
Ahh, you want to do damage control when there is radio active steam all over the place and "hot" water sloshing around? I don't, as matter of fact anyone disobeying orders to do so has my fullest sympathies. A conventional steam plant can be run in so many different configurations it almost impossible to completely knock out main propulsion.
Arc royal disagrees
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.