• Content count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1307

Community Reputation

35 Neutral

1 Follower

About Navynuke99

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile Navynuke99

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NC, USA
  • Portal profile Navynuke99

Recent Profile Visitors

99 profile views
  1. This is beautiful. Bravo, sir.
  2. How about this one?
  3. Geez KiloWhiskey, how old are you?
  4. You really have no clue about anything related to government procurement, engineering research and development, project management, or industrial infrastructure and supply chain management, do you?
  5. Because, you know, a bomber shares SO much in common with a warship. Dip a B-52 in salt water for 25+ years, and see what happens. Also, the planes have been flying almost continuously for the time they've been in service (and the bombers that are still in service are B-52H's built from 1961 onward, so 55 years old or newer, not "almost 70 year old" bombers). Things are fine as long as they're kept in service and doing their job- it's when you park something and leave it alone for say, 25 years or so that you're going to have a really, really, REALLY hard time getting it to work on the first try without significant time and expense. Park your car in the corner of your driveway for the winter, and see what all you have to do to get it started again come spring time. Then there's the matter of training of the crew. No active duty sailors still in the fleet sailed on any of the battleships. You'd have to start from scratch with the training, and bring back every (dwindling) veteran who ever worked on or around the existing battleships (preferably the same ones they served on) to try and figure out how to make things work. Even then, strap in for a very long, very painful, and very, very costly on the job training process. Meanwhile, B-52 crews have been trained constantly since the bomber first entered SAC service. The quirks of the planes are well understood, the maintenance crews know all the ins and outs of each plane, and workarounds and individual idiosyncrasies are known and passed down. Saves tons of time, effort, energy, and retraining. Finally, the weapons the B-52 was able to carry from early on in its service career (Mk.82/83/84, etc) are still being manufactured and carried by a variety of other platforms, so the cost per unit of a bomb is very low, and handling, assembling, and install the bombs is a very, very well known and understood undertaking. Not like, say, shells that haven't been manufactured in a couple of decades or more. But aside from those things, yeah, I could see how an Iowa is totally like a B-52!
  6. So basically, design and build a brand new ship? Because that's what you'd end up having to do. Part of the reasons the refit of the Iowas in the 80's took so long was because of all the backwards shoehorning the Navy had to do trying to fit modern electronics into a hull designed by engineers who had no ideas the types of weapons that would be around a couple of generations later. There's a concept in design called "future proofing," trying to create flexibility in the design in various areas to allow adaptability to new technologies that will inevitably come down the line later. The Iowas weren't really built with that much of an idea in mind, since the Navy at that time was building a new class of battleship every 6-7 years, which was always a continuous improvement on the last design. Besides, lots of research has been done in hydrodynamics, metallurgy, marine engineering, naval architecture, signal processing, and other areas that would completely render a 70+ year old design utterly obsolete. Heck, even the blueprints the original ship's plans were drawn on are woefully obsolete.
  7. ...and here we go again.. I'm pretty sure you're very, very wrong. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/50146-recomminssioning-the-iowas-donald-trump-is-high/page__st__220__pid__2541697#entry2541697 And one doesn't simply "gut" a ship- it's not like you're opening a can of sardines, taking out the fish, and soldering the lid back down. Ships are designed with hundreds of individual compartments that are all carefully laid out and designed to form the structural members of the hull. You can't just go start cutting out pieces of equipment and bulkheads, decks, and overheads all willy-nilly without significantly affecting the structural integrity and strength of the hull. Not to mention, it ain't exactly easy to cut through several inches of hardened steel armor, even if it is 70+ years old.
  8. I've already mentioned this several times in this thread and others; the engineering plants, main steam system, electrical generators, main switchboards, wireways, and distribution layout won't support the necessary equipment to provide power to even a single railgun of the size used on the Zumwalt. Not to mention trying to shoehorn in modern fire-control systems into the CIC, install new sensors and antennas, and getting everything to play nicely... If not impossible, it'd be so horrifically expensive and technically complex that it'd make even the most money-hungry defense contractor refuse to even consider trying.
  9. That's funny, since the real thing actually carried Kingfisher spotters that were slower than cold molasses in January.
  10. No, their propulsion plants were *not* in good condition. Search for the posts that chrisibare and I have made earlier on this topic; if the plants had been tip top, the Navy wouldn't have come and raided every remaining museum ship for literally hundreds of tons of parts and machinery back in the early 80's.. In addition, it was available capacity for Harpoons, Tomahawks, and their associated radar and fire control systems that drove the decision to recommision the Iowas instead of the Des Moines CA's. Not mileage on the propulsion plants.
  11. 1. They called the mighty beast "Enterprise." She was powered by 8 submarine-sized reactors, and from what I heard, she kinda did OK for a few years of active duty in the fleet. Just a few. 2. No, all shielding is not "minimal." Otherwise divers, tug drivers, pier services, etc wouldn't be able to operate alongside a submarine when she's getting underway with the reactor critical. And between you and me, you really don't want to snorkel on the EPM and outboard to get underway, moor, or enter or leave port. And as for knowing "exactly how much" shielding is there, I can tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Trusting that information to just the contractors who build the boats, as good as EB, Huntington Ingalls, Bechtel, General Electric, and Westinghouse are, it'd probably be a good idea if other folks knew what the shielding makeup is. You know, like maybe the folks who are operating those plants day in and day out for a living? 3. Further related to this shielding, the reactors are pretty darn isolated from the rest of the ship. I mean, it's not like in Star Wars where they drop one in the middle of the hangar bay or anything like that. Keeping the zoomies out of the people spaces is a pretty good way to save money on personnel related expenses, so the Navy does everything in their power to achieve that end. Like keeping virtually all the "hot" systems inside the heavily shielded reactor compartment. 4.Your numbers for both civilian and shipboard reactor plant capacities are off. By a good bit. I can't say exactly how much or in which direction, but double check your math. 5. I'm trying to follow the rest of your argument. Reactors are shielded, but they're minimally shielded? And they're isolated, but they're also self-contained? Maybe you could clarify a bit better exactly what you're trying to say? Thanks!
  12. Really haven't had any fun with the non-premium Russian ships, so I've pretty much stagnated at T4. Rage quit the US BB line at the NY, but i really want a North Carolina (I volunteer on the real one), so I'll probably bite the bullet and force my way through that line. Absolutely loving the Yorck and Pensacola, and enjoying the KM BB's. Stopped carrier play because it's just my fun any more, but keeping my Indy in case it gets better down the line. Love the Minekaze, but see no need to keep going up that line.
  13. Hey, I built warships out of Legos as a kid, and it's totally the same thing as real ships!
  14. Finally. Somebody else here who speaks Engineer.
  15. ....once again. One does not simply drop a couple of nuclear reactors into the hull of an existing ship. It's not like you're playing with a giant Lego set or anything- the reactor core vessels are some of the first components installed in the ship's hull early in the construction process, and the shielding around the reactor compartments are integral to the ballasting and weight distribution calculations for the ship. There's a reason no ship has been converted from conventional to nuclear propulsion.