I wonder what the insurance bill is gonna be after this.
(Yet another collision.)
Some evidence has been provided that it may have been due to strong currents from high water in the St. Lawrence seaway owing to heavy rains and snowpack this year in North America. That and possibly a wind influence. Given that Future!USS Billings is a jet boat, it might have difficulty dealing with strong winds if unpowered.
Fun fact: the longest naval vessel ever commissioned was the USS Enterprise (CVN-65). The Nimitz and Ford classes are both shorter, but heavier in terms of tonnage.
They should have sent a poet.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
-_- the answer was fucking idiotic. The USS Maine, the only problem is that is mostly said as a joke and the ship was decommissioned at some point. The folks at work thought the guy needed a smack.
Who watches the watchmen?
USS Maine?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Yeah. The US battleship that sank near Cuba after an explosion which is in itself contentious. Some claim it is the longest ship and "commissioned" despite having been removed from the list of commissioned ships the same year it sank. They say longest because parts of it are in other states. It's one of those idiot military/historical myths that just won't die.
Who watches the watchmen?
If I Face Palm any harder I might just break a bone...
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Yeah everyone was annoyed and disappointed.
Who watches the watchmen?
...
So like how the Hood is the royal navy's largest submarine?
Edited by Imca on Jun 26th 2019 at 4:09:27 AM
Pretty sure one of the ships that served in the Pacific fleet would be longer by that metric, given that many had bits and pieces blasted off of them at points all across the Pacific.
Wasn't Repulse bigger than Hood?
Not as built. Repulse was 764ft long, Hood was 860. Can't speak for the wrecks.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
She/Her Pronouns
Fun bit of news that passed us by, but four German Battleships and Cruisers wrecked at Scapa Flow are (were?) up for sale on eBay.
If you are a battleship aficionado, are very, very rich, and have always wanted your own (sunken) capital ship, this might be just the deal for you! Own a piece of the High Seas Fleet today!
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jun 27th 2019 at 2:33:03 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
^ So railgun battleships when? \*dodges torpedo*
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Likely never. This thing will likely be on a high energy output demo ship of some sort for the sea trials phase. The ships that will get this will have the power plants already or will have them in their future designs.
Who watches the watchmen?
rollin' on dubs
Tom, given that the land based rail gun has two 1.2 megawatt generators sitting next to it in the General Atomic demo - I think it's a ways off from being practical.
A THAAD radar has two 1.2 meg gennys in an "N+1" configuration: one generation can power the radar while the other can either run to balance the load or be backup (not a true N+1, the A.C.E. soldiers who ran the things wanted three to have one as a true backup).
Each "Power Plant Unit" takes one fuel tanker per day or one tanker worth of fuel in 10 hours if the radar is in active search mode. These generators can shut down in 5 minutes but they do take at least 10 minutes to start.
And these were part of the "Blitzer" Youtube demo - a puff piece mind you - that GA wanted to show how their railgun would work.
The land based prototype can perform wonders hooked to the civilian electric grid.
Unhooked, it needs so much fuel that it's eating battalion sized amounts of fuel.
Most cruiser-sized ships can't spare that amount of power and still run things like the engine, radar, senors etc.
It's getting it to play nice with a limited source of power that's further limited by its logistics.
When that happens Tom, you can do your happy dance.
Edited by TairaMai on Jun 30th 2019 at 7:11:57 PM
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48
Out of curiosity, how much fuel does a modern destroyer or cruiser burn just getting around? I'm sure the modern propulsion engines are pretty efficient compared to ye olden days, but a Zumwalt isn't exactly light compared to many things.
rollin' on dubs
The problem is that : a) modern warships are built around guns or missiles that don't use that much fuel, b) even turbine engines have their limits and c) trying to get a nuclear cruiser would be a nightmare for the DOD.
The Zumwalts will get a downsized (but still potent) version of the railgun because it's too good to pass up and their original guns were redonkulusly expensive. Even the shells for it were in the $120K range.
I doubt that the "Blitzer" will get past the PowerPoint slides stage.
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48
But we built one before. USS Long Beach.
We can crib reactors off the Ford class carriers if need be.
rollin' on dubs
And the USS Long Beach sailed into history - too costly to maintain along with all the other nuclear cruisers.
- EDIT **
that can produce enough electrical power to get desired performance are the two existing (and one under construction as of 2018) Zumwalt-class destroyers (DDG-1000 series); they can generate 78 megawatts of power, more than is necessary to power a railgun. Engineers are working to derive technologies developed for the DDG-1000 series ships into a battery system so other warships can operate a railgun. So they can do it.
If the railguns can overcome the durability problem - and the cost.
Edited by TairaMai on Jun 30th 2019 at 7:28:15 PM
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48
Most literature I've read on the subject indicate that the days of burning out whole barrels for one shot are long gone. They've figured out a way to give them some kind of longevity. Maybe not as much as say an M16, but definitely far more than was originally known.
As for the cost, well breakthrough technologies like that have a tendency to be expensive to start and complete but end up paying for themselves many times over in the long run. Combat aircraft, aircraft carriers, submarines, nuclear power, nuclear warheads, jet engines, guided missiles and munitions, satellites and space technology and now railguns. All expensive but all successful and with a proven record.
rollin' on dubs
Again the problem is cost. The Zumwalts may end up with it because their existing guns are dead weight (the shells for the advanced gun system cost $1MIL per shell).
China is trying to make a railgun but so far they have one ship with one turret - I think they have the same problems the US is facing.
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Is the Chinese thing even a railgun?
Oh really when?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
I have some doubts about China's claim to rail guns.
Who watches the watchmen?
Longest physical length is almost definitely the Fords and Nimitzes at 1,092 feet bow to stern. After that you have to go through various MSC ships before you get to the Americas.
"Yup. That tasted purple."