Page 7 of 20 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 195
Thanks Tree73Thanks

Thread: 1st Ford Class Supercarrier to join USN this year

  1. #61
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,633
    Thanks
    264

    Quote Originally Posted by Tedminator View Post
    granted a USN fleet of 20 carriers (including the STOVL carriers) seems a bit excessive, but the oceans are the mainline of defense and trade route for the USA.


    Anyhooo ifn i was potus I would cut that by five and re-invest some of it towards speeding up carrier borne drone tech.
    Calling the amphibious warfare ships "carriers" just because they have a flight deck and could technically operate Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing Aircraft is a bit of a stretch.

    Technically you could make the same argument for any cargo ship with a big enough flat landing space.

  2. #62
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    66,316
    Thanks
    31450

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Engine-Ear View Post
    So, the point is that the US is not the only bad guy when it comes to weapons proliferation.
    Who said that, where?

  3. #63
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    66,316
    Thanks
    31450

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Engine-Ear View Post
    Good for us, seems to bother you. Most every source I found said we were at 31% and Russia was at 27%.
    Uh, 31% is larger that 27%.
    I never said it was either good or bad. Just reporting facts which you agree are accurate.

  4. #64
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    38,058
    Thanks
    39964

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    So?

    Here's the problem I see with your argument: There is less organized state-sponsored violence now than at any point in human history because we have institutions around the world that discourage violence and help people solve conflicts without it. This is terrible news for anyone who makes weapons because it robs them of their market. People who make weapons--whatever their country--need for people to be killing each other and threatening each other at high rates in order to continue making profits. And the key in any industry is increasing profits at increasing rates.

    War is profitable. Anyone who makes arms wants to foment more of it. Maybe that's okay for Russia, since they have no cultural notion at all that they should do anything other than dominate whomever they can dominate. Is that also true for the US? I hope not, but I fear that our interest in the economic benefits of war will continue to outweigh what we think of ourselves as a nation. That implicates us more than Russia because part of our self-concept is that we're morally better than Russia. That puts the onus on us to change, not them.

    On the other hand if people murdering each other over power and resources doesn't bug you, then laissez les bons temps rouler!
    Thank you, Captain Nemo

  5. #65
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    38,058
    Thanks
    39964

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Tedminator View Post
    yeah! and it'll even have sexy trekish systems on it such as Electric Armor, Photon Lasers, the Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System




    Each new technology and design feature integrated into the Ford-class aircraft carrier improves sortie generation, manning requirements, and operational capabilities. New defense systems, such as free-electron laser directed-energy weapons, dynamic armor, and tracking systems will require more power. "Only half of the electrical power-generation capability on CVN-78 is needed to run currently planned systems, including EMALS. CVN-78 will thus have the power reserves that the Nimitz class lacks to run lasers and dynamic armor. The addition of new technologies, power systems, design layout, and better control systems results in an increased sortie rate of 25% over the Nimitz-class and a 25% reduction in manpower required to operate.

    Breakthrough waste management technology will be deployed on Gerald R Ford. Co-developed with the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, PyroGenesis Canada Inc., was in 2008 awarded the contract to outfit the ship with a Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System (PAWDS). This compact system will treat all combustible solid waste generated on board the ship.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald...rcraft_carrier
    Phasors, Plasma torpedoes and Shields, oh, my.

  6. #66
    Veteran Member Micro Machines Champion, Race Against Time Champion Tedminator's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    23,218
    Thanks
    13133

    From
    South Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    Calling the amphibious warfare ships "carriers" just because they have a flight deck and could technically operate Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing Aircraft is a bit of a stretch.

    Technically you could make the same argument for any cargo ship with a big enough flat landing space.
    uh, no. you being silly. technically

    An aircraft carrier is a warship with a full-length flight deck, hangar and facilities for arming, deploying, and recovering aircraft. Ships classed as amphibious assault ships and helicopter carriers, whose primary purpose is to carry, arm, deploy, and recover aircraft... are carriers. A cargo ship is not an aircraft carrier.. technically or otherwise.





    edit heck come to think of it other nations' carriers are called carriers even tho they are smaller and have less capability than a US Navy amphibious assault ship..

    Last edited by Tedminator; 17th May 2016 at 06:06 PM.
    Thanks from Hollywood

  7. #67
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    60,820
    Thanks
    18491

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Steam is not a "form of power." It's a means of converting heat energy into motion energy. It's also pretty efficient. Solar power plants use steam. So do nuclear power plants.
    My point is that it's corrosive, hard to contain and an inefficient way of producing motion energy.
    Most of the energy is wasted just producing heat to make the steam.
    Why do we need tp produce so much wasted by-product...ie heat...to enable motion?
    Have the nuke potential energy converted directly into useful mechanical energy.(why waste it producing heat?)
    (I'll bet a Nova broadcast 200 years from now will laugh at us)
    Last edited by Devil505; 17th May 2016 at 02:28 PM.

  8. #68
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,697
    Thanks
    34322

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    My point is that it's corrosive, hard to contain and an inefficient way of producing motion energy.
    Corrosive it may be, but it's cheap, plentiful, and you don't have to contain it because once it returns to a reasonable temperature, it's harmless. I don't know that it's inefficient--quite the opposite.
    Most of the energy is wasted just producing heat to make the steam.
    But producing heat is the easiest thing to do with energy. In fact, I can't think of any energy that isn't associated with heat. Can you? Other methods of harnessing energy still produce heat, which engineers take great pains to reduce and/or dissipate.
    Why do we need tp produce so much wasted by-product...ie heat...to enable motion?
    (I'll bet a Nova broadcast 200 years from now will laugh at us)
    I'm not an engineer or a physicist, but I'd point out that energy IS heat. That's how we measure it: calories, BTU's...they are mostly measurements of heat.

    Steam IS efficient. If you can find something MORE efficient, use it, but poo-poohing something because it's "old technology" is just a modern hobgoblin.

  9. #69
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    60,820
    Thanks
    18491

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Corrosive it may be, but it's cheap, plentiful, and you don't have to contain it because once it returns to a reasonable temperature, it's harmless. I don't know that it's inefficient--quite the opposite.
    But producing heat is the easiest thing to do with energy. In fact, I can't think of any energy that isn't associated with heat. Can you? Other methods of harnessing energy still produce heat, which engineers take great pains to reduce and/or dissipate.
    I'm not an engineer or a physicist, but I'd point out that energy IS heat. That's how we measure it: calories, BTU's...they are mostly measurements of heat.

    Steam IS efficient. If you can find something MORE efficient, use it, but poo-poohing something because it's "old technology" is just a modern hobgoblin.
    18th century thinking Rass.
    I'm no physicist either but I know the future will have much more efficient ways of converting fuel to mechanical energy without having to waste much of it producing useless heat to harness that energy. (unless of course producing heat is the final goal of the system)
    Last edited by Devil505; 17th May 2016 at 02:49 PM.

  10. #70
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,697
    Thanks
    34322

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    18th century thinking Rass.
    So is representative democracy.
    I'm no physicist either but I know the future will have much more efficient ways of converting fuel to mechanical energy without having to waste much of it producing useless heat to harness that energy. (unless of course producing heat is the final goal of the system)
    If neither of us is a physicist or engineer, what business does either of us have in speculating about what we do not know? That's all I'm saying. It's entirely fatuous to make predictions based on ignorance, which is what I claim you're doing.

Page 7 of 20 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Class (Obama) vs no class (Trump)
    By Dr Sampson Simpson in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 15th March 2016, 11:38 AM
  2. Kodak declares Class-warfare on the Middle-class!!!
    By Oscar99 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12th October 2012, 08:09 AM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 27th January 2012, 01:00 PM
  4. Class warfare? Yeah, and the middle class is losing...
    By Cicero in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 27th September 2011, 08:56 PM
  5. Rush Limbaugh on the Ruling Class vs. Country Class
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 26th July 2010, 07:36 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed