84FSP wrote: If you want some giggles check out the corrosion issues some of our other new "wold class" vessels are having. Silly engineers... Disintegrating Defense Dollars
I would expect something like this if I had designed it.
84FSP wrote: If you want some giggles check out the corrosion issues some of our other new "wold class" vessels are having. Silly engineers... Disintegrating Defense Dollars
I would expect something like this if I had designed it.
that is a well known problem with aluminum boats.. you do not even need dissimilar metals in contact with each other.. all you need is one or two boats in a marina with bad grounding and the surrounding seawater turns into a low charge battery.. and eats the aluminum hull.
If the navy purposely left off of the device to keep it at bay.. it -is- there fault for speccing it that way
ncjay wrote: The USS Clinton - America's first submarine that comes standard with a stripper pole and a honeymoon suite
Don't kid yourself, those have been standard for along time. 
mad_machine wrote: that is a well known problem with aluminum boats.. you do not even need dissimilar metals in contact with each other.. all you need is one or two boats in a marina with bad grounding and the surrounding seawater turns into a low charge battery.. and eats the aluminum hull. If the navy purposely left off of the device to keep it at bay.. it -is- there fault for speccing it that way
Grounding has always been a huge issue in boats. It doesn't even need a charge coming from dock. It is an easy problem to get around, but it does need to be designed for it.
Basil Exposition wrote:spitfirebill wrote:What landed on Lewinski's dress.aircooled wrote: Ahhh, yes, a Carter sub. Makes sense, but still in a way insulting. You know, those things are full of...No, what?
Evidence?
Basil Exposition wrote:spitfirebill wrote:What landed on Lewinski's dress.aircooled wrote: Ahhh, yes, a Carter sub. Makes sense, but still in a way insulting. You know, those things are full of...No, what?
Presidue
Chelsea's potential sibling?
U,S Submarines used to be named after fish and other sea creatures. The first SSBN 41 for freedom boats set the precedent that only fast attack boats had good names. Then they figured out that fish don't vote, so they named the 688 class boats after cities. Since the late 70's the Seawolf has been the only old school type sub name not named after a person, a city or a state.
Carriers are awesome at power projection and just awesome machines. That said, my opinion is we have enough.
T.J. wrote: Carriers are awesome at power projection and just awesome machines. That said, my opinion is we have enough.
IIRC, the new one is slated to replace the oldest of the ones currently in service, so the total number of them doesn't change.
Wikipedia has a list of US Naval vessels named after living people, and while it's not a new phenomenon (there were a bunch of USS George Washingtons back in the 1700s) it does seem to be happening a lot more in the last 40 years or so.
In reply to codrus:
Yep, the Gerry Ford class is what is needed for changing times. The Nimitz class boats don't have the electrical power necessary for all the cool new toys developed in the last 30 years.
$13b? That's walking around money for Apple.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/04/13/fun-number-apple-has-twice-as-much-cash-as-the-us-government/
Intrepid, Saratoga, Wasp, Kittyhawk. Those were names for carriers, not a succession of E36 M3ty presidents.
stanger_missle wrote:Basil Exposition wrote:Evidence?spitfirebill wrote:What landed on Lewinski's dress.aircooled wrote: Ahhh, yes, a Carter sub. Makes sense, but still in a way insulting. You know, those things are full of...No, what?
Sea men! Sea men! Jesus h, could you guys really not guess that???!!!?!?!? 
In reply to HiTempguy:
(sigh...)
Shakes head...
In reply to Appleseed:
Actually, Lexington & Saratoga were supposed to be battle cruiser names. 
And the fist carrier was named after a person, Langly, but still, those were good names.
In reply to Appleseed:
Yea, but at least most/if not all, have been a navy veteran or an influential figure on behalf of the navy. I don't mind it much presently.
I doubt we have to worry about names unless they forego those seeming requirements.
Appleseed wrote: And the fist carrier was named after a person, Langly, but still, those were good names.
first carrier was Hermes... Brit... Langley was converted coal carrier... too slow. First US carrier built from the keel up as carrier was Ranger.
Other early carrier names... Hornet... Enterprise... Essex... Ticonderoga....
Couldn't they have named it Halliburton or some oil company, so it makes more sense when it bombs the middle east....
You'll need to log in to post.
